House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
The Home Office sets fees for border, immigration and nationality services at a level that ensures that they make a substantial contribution to the cost of running the immigration system, thereby reducing the burden on the UK taxpayer. Although the economic impact assessments that are published alongside immigration fees legislation do not separately consider child-registration fees, they show the impact of fee increases on the volume of applications to be minimal.
Tim Farron
The Home Office charges more than £1,000 for children—including children who were born here and those who moved in infancy—to register as British citizens. Is this not profiteering at the expense of young people who seek to pledge their future to Britain? Is this not another Windrush scandal in the making, with people not getting the documents now that officials will rely on in future? The Home Secretary knows that he faces a legal challenge on this issue, so will he do the right thing and end these excessive charges now?
Sajid Javid
I will not speak about the legal case, for obvious reasons, but I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is right that there is a balance between the costs faced by the individuals who make applications and those faced by the taxpayer. It is sensible to keep those costs under review, and it is right that Parliament makes the decision on whether costs are changed.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman talks of it as profit, but the revenue generated is used not just to provide public services to those people who make applications but to support wider public services. As I said, it is right that we have a balance between the costs of an application and the costs to which the taxpayer is exposed.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
The UKVI contact centre has set contractual targets for the commercial partner that delivers contact-centre services on its behalf. The achievement of those targets is monitored daily through the service-management team, to assure achievement. The team holds formal board review meetings monthly to review performance against the set key performance indicators.
Rosie Cooper
Is the Minister satisfied with the current target times and does she think they are appropriate? My constituent made an application in November 2017 and has not heard a single thing since—nothing.
Caroline Nokes
It is important to note that service standards are met in the vast majority of cases. If applications are not straightforward, we do not set a service standard, because we think it is right that applications should be considered thoroughly and in detail.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the chorus of complaints from countries such as Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia, where businessmen who want to come to do trade deals with us—indeed, in some cases Members of Parliament or Government Ministers from those countries—are facing lengthy delays in obtaining visas, and in some cases outright refusal? Will she have another look at the issue? It is doing real damage to our relations with those countries.
Caroline Nokes
UKVI issues 2.7 million visas every single year and, as I said, the vast majority are done within our service standards. I am happy to look into my right hon. Friend’s point, because in a Britain that is outward-looking, global and open for business, it is important that visas are issued efficiently.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Home Affairs Committee report on Home Office delivery of Brexit found that a lack of experience among staff resulted in life-changing consequences. What is the Department doing to improve the recruitment and retention of staff to make sure that, while targets are met, the quality of decision making is still ensured?
Caroline Nokes
The quality of decision making is of course important. We work closely with our caseworkers to make sure that they have the right level of training. In many instances, we sit senior caseworkers with those who are more junior, until such time as they can be confident in the decisions that they make.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that UKVI has the resources it needs to be effective and efficient?
Caroline Nokes
There is of course a mixture of resources. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the fees that are levied for the UKVI service make a contribution towards the cost of that service and towards the wider border costs in general. It is important that we have the right number of staff and that they work efficiently, and we are taking steps to ensure that that is the case.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that delays in responding are one of the biggest problems for the public, for business and for Members of Parliament trying to help their constituents? I have innumerable such cases, including that of Ms Rettie Grace Downer, who submitted an application for further leave in 2005 and whose application is still outstanding 13 years later. Does she recognise the danger of sounding complacent on this issue, and what will she do to further bear down on these unacceptable delays?
Caroline Nokes
Although I cannot comment on individual cases, the right hon. Lady has, of course, pointed to a case that was started in 2005 under a previous Labour Administration. I am sure that she will be pleased to hear—[Interruption.] She can shout at me from a sedentary position, but I am sure that she will be pleased to hear that, at a recent away day for border and immigration staff, I made it very clear that one of my highest priorities is making sure that responses to Members of Parliament and the public are of the highest priority so that we see prompt responses.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
The Government are very concerned about the increase in knife crime and the devastating impact that it has on victims, their families and communities. That is why we published a serious violence strategy in April, setting out action to tackle knife crime, including new legislation in the Offensive Weapons Bill, the launch of the £1 million community fund and continuing police action under Operation Sceptre.
Colin Clark
I welcome the Offensive Weapons Bill, which will put tough legislation in place and make it harder than ever before for people to get dangerous weapons. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that banning the delivery of bladed articles to residential addresses will not prevent the legal pursuits of tradesmen and hobbyists?
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for that. I am happy to confirm that the Bill provides defences for a number of items that otherwise would be prohibited, especially those that otherwise would have been delivered to a residential address. This includes bespoke knives and bladed products and those that might be used in re-enactment activities. I can assure him that he will still be allowed to toss the caber in the Highland games.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that that is greatly reassuring for the hon. Gentleman.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
This Wednesday, the Youth Violence Commission will publish its interim policy report. Last year, knife crime increased by 22% and, in London, we have had another tragic spate of stabbings over the weekend. We must urgently seek long-term solutions. Will the Secretary of State commit to engaging with the recommendations of the cross-party Youth Violence Commission?
Sajid Javid
First, the hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this issue. I can assure her that we are doing everything we can working not just across parties, but with a number of groups that have a lot to contribute. We have already made a commitment to work with the all-party parliamentary group. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), is doing just that, and we are very happy to listen to its suggestions.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that, often in restraining suspects with knives, service animals such as police dogs are injured. It is very welcome that the Government are supporting my private Member’s Bill, the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill, but does he agree that the recent consultation by the Secretary of State for the Environment is also an important step forward in trying to increase the sentence so that this sort of knife crime is really put down?
Sajid Javid
I very much agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I would like to see an increase in sentencing for those who engage in terrible cruelty to animals. May I also take this opportunity to thank him for his Bill and say that we are very happy to support it?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that the Home Secretary does not want to trivialise this issue, but the fact of the matter is that the real concern—the deep roots of this issue—is very often the emergence of gangs in all of our towns and cities and in our schools. What will we do to combat not just knife crime, but the gangs that seem to promote it?
Sajid Javid
Again, this is an important issue in this debate. There is a lot more that we can do both in Government and in working with other organisations, including community organisations, especially in terms of early intervention and prevention. The funding that was allocated, such as the £11 million on early intervention and youth grants, will make a difference as will the new national centre to co-ordinate action based on county lines.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I wonder whether the Home Secretary has decided to accept the suggested amendments that I made on Second Reading of the Offensive Weapons Bill, not least the one where, currently, the offence of threatening somebody with a knife applies only to public places. Does he agree that the offence of threatening with a knife should apply to everywhere it is done, including in private places as well?
Sajid Javid
I remember that debate very well. I thought that my hon. Friend made a thoughtful and valuable contribution. I listened carefully to the suggestion he made then, which is why I am considering it.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The law governing what type of knife people can buy across the counter in Scotland is different from the law in England, yet a knife can kill regardless of whether it is English or Scottish. What discussions has the Home Secretary had with the Scottish Government with a view to bringing these laws more into line?
Sajid Javid
We have been having extensive discussions with the Government in Scotland, and they have indicated that they will be supporting the measures in the Bill through a legislative consent motion.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Knife crime is often associated with county lines. I asked the Security Minister at a recent Home Office questions how the national county lines co-ordination centre was to be funded and was told that it would be through the police transformation fund. I then received a letter saying that
“it does not come from the Police Transformation Fund…and I apologise if this is the impression given.”
But the same letter says that
“projects and programmes funded through the PTF will support the strategy’s aims.”
So how are the Government funding their anti-county lines programme? Is it all from new resources or not?
Sajid Javid
First, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of dealing with the whole issue of county lines and welcomes the new co-ordination centre. It will be funded through the commitment of £40 million into the serious violence strategy, and the centre’s funding specifically will be £3.6 million over the next two years.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
The Government are committed to an immigration system that operates in the national interest and ensures that businesses can attract the talented migrants that they need. From 6 July, we removed all doctors’ and nurses’ posts from the yearly cap of 20,700 places, ensuring that the NHS is able to recruit the clinical staff that it needs.
Helen Whately
The hot weather means that apples and pears may be ready to harvest early this year, as was the case last year when growers in my constituency struggled to harvest their crops. Will my right hon. Friend update me on the prospects for a seasonal agricultural workers scheme to ensure that farmers have the workforce that they need to harvest British fruit and vegetables?
Sajid Javid
I am very sympathetic to the issue that my hon. Friend has raised. As we design our future immigration system, I want to ensure that it takes into account the seasonal demand for labour not only in agriculture, but also perhaps in hospitality. That is why we have asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee to look at this issue. We will see what we can do when the committee reports back.
Sajid Javid
I know that my hon. Friend will agree that it is fantastic that we will now have an opportunity—for the first time in decades—to design our own immigration system. We should take that seriously, as we are. It will be led by the White Paper, which will come out soon after the summer recess, and an immigration Bill that will make all the changes that are recommended and debated in Parliament.
John Howell
I am glad that doctors and nurses have been excluded from the cap on skilled workers, which will free up many additional places for other highly-skilled occupations. Will my right hon. Friend give an assessment of how these regulations have worked since they have come into force?
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the changes and for his support. It is a bit too early to give an assessment, since the changes only came into play on 6 July. Like my hon. Friend, I am confident that they will not only help to provide some of the high skills that our economy needs, but will actually go on to create jobs.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Ministry of Justice figures show that half of immigration cases that go to appeal in England and Wales are overturned. Does the Secretary of State agree that the situation needs urgent attention and that those flaws need to be addressed before the European citizens who are in the UK have to apply for settled status?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will know that we get tens of thousands of applications each year. Unfortunately, in many cases not all the information that is asked for is provided in the first instance. Officials will chase that up, and they will do so in a way that is as helpful as possible. If people want their application to be looked at in a timely manner, it is always helpful if all information is provided up front.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
We have had numerous debates and countless questions on this issue. Is it not about time that the Home Office got together with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and sorted this problem out? It is estimated that last year we ploughed back into the ground about 10% of our fruit and vegetables: what is it going to be this year?
Sajid Javid
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Home Office works very closely with DEFRA, as with other Departments, on issues affecting migration. With regard to making sure that we have the talent and skills we need for our agricultural sector, working with DEFRA is exactly what we are doing.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Scotland needs more than those termed “skilled” under the immigration rules. The continued availability of workers from other EU countries is vital to employers across the Scottish economy. Is not the comprehensive economic and trade agreement-style mobility framework suggested in last week’s White Paper a recipe for disaster for employers other than London-based multinationals?
Joanna Cherry
Maintaining and increasing Scotland’s working-age population is vital for Scotland’s continued economic prosperity. Last week’s White Paper says that the UK Government will design a mobility framework that works for all parts of the United Kingdom. When is the Home Secretary going to meet his Scottish Government counterparts and engage in how the future immigration policy will impact on Scotland?
Sajid Javid
I am sure that the hon. and learned Lady agrees that we want an immigration system that serves the national interest—that brings immigration down to sustainable levels but also gives the skills that we need for the entire UK, of course including Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister is planning to visit Scotland this summer to meet Ministers.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am glad that my right hon. Friend is working on a new UK-based migration policy to hit the Government’s targets. Does he accept that we might need this as early as 30 March next year if we leave without an agreement?
Sajid Javid
As always, my right hon. Friend makes a very important point. While we are working on the basis that we will not need it as early as 30 March, he is absolutely right to point out that we should be prepared for all eventualities, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
It is extremely important that every firefighter receives the right level of training for the very demanding work that they do. The new national framework makes a requirement for every single fire service to have a strategy, as all 45 do, and now independent inspection will help us to get a better view of what good looks like and where training is not good enough.
Jo Platt
Across Greater Manchester in the past year we have seen a 31% increase in the number of special service calls to our fire service, including many calls to reports of cardiac arrests. This is placing an enormous strain on our talented and dedicated firefighters. What will the Government be doing to resource fire services to provide the support and training needed to cope with this additional pressure?
Mr Hurd
With respect to the hon. Lady, I do not think it is an issue of resources, because fire budgets have been held flat in cash terms despite a backdrop of a 50% fall in fires over the past decade. The fire system has found the flexibility in its budgets to move over a quarter of a billion pounds-worth of taxpayers’ money into research. However, it is absolutely important in this next phase that we have a better understanding of how consistent good training is across the system.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Firefighter staffing in Northamptonshire will soon be the responsibility of the new combined police and fire commissioner. Will the Minister work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that Northamptonshire County Council, which currently governs the fire service, hands over to the commissioner the correct financial resources to get the new organisation off to a good start?
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
Firefighter Michael Dowden told the Grenfell inquiry that he had not received any familiarisation training before his inspection of Grenfell Tower in 2016. With cuts to 11,000 fire service jobs, station closures and privatisation of training delivery, our overstretched fire services—despite the Minister’s usual comments about resources—are struggling to complete the training they need. With all this in mind, what specific measures is he taking to ensure that fire services have the capacity to deliver the training that our firefighters need to keep both themselves and our communities safe?
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
The Home Office reviews all immigration and nationality fees annually, with any changes normally implemented in April each year. We currently have no agreed plans to change fee levels, but the process for considering whether any changes are necessary commences in the summer and parliamentary approval has to be gained before any changes are made.
Chris Stephens
The Minister will be aware that immigration fees for limited leave to remain have increased by 79% in four years to £1,033 per person, with no reduction for children. Does she appreciate that the cost can be crippling for families with a number of children going through that process, and will she at the very least look at reducing fees for children so that they cover processing alone?
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am of course alive to the points made at recent Home Affairs Committee meetings and in the recent Lords debate on child citizenship fees. In due course, I will also consider the findings of the scheduled review by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
Will immigration fees and policy be changed after we leave the European Union so that we seek the brightest and best from around the world without fear or favour, be they from India, China, America or, indeed, the European Union?
Caroline Nokes
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He will of course have heard me say that fees are reviewed annually, and we will continue with that policy. He is right, however, to point out that we will still seek to attract the brightest and best, and our future immigration Bill will set out exactly how we intend to do that.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree with Mark Thomson, the director general of UK Visas and Immigration, who said at a recent MPs’ casework meeting that those who pay for premium services but do not get their visas on the same day should have their fees returned to them?
Caroline Nokes
I was not present at that meeting, so I cannot comment on that specific case, but I am very conscious that Her Majesty’s Passport Office and UKVI work very hard to ensure that we deliver within service standards. Where fees are looked at and there is a genuine case for a refund, we do make refunds.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Home Affairs Committee’s recent report on the Windrush scandal shows that the whole immigration and nationality application service is hugely complicated, very bureaucratic and needs completely overhauling and streamlining, and that fees bear no relationship to the service’s efficiency or cost. Will the Minister guarantee that the additional costs of sorting out the Windrush scandal will not be used as an excuse, under full cost recovery, to jack up fees yet further?
Caroline Nokes
Of course, the lessons learned review that is commencing into Windrush will be an important opportunity for us to review all practices across UKVI and ensure that such an appalling scandal cannot happen again. My hon. Friend will have heard comments about reviews of fees, which happen annually, but I point out that we passed primary legislation in 2014 that allows the Home Office to charge fees that not only recover the cost of individual applications but contribute to the whole borders and immigration system, thus helping to secure our borders and ensure that we are safe.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
The welfare and safeguarding of children is at the heart of the family returns process, and our policy is clear that we do all we can to keep families together. Other than in exceptional circumstances, a child will not be separated from both parents for immigration purposes. Detention is used sparingly, for the purposes of public protection and removal. We encourage those with no right to remain in the UK to leave voluntarily, and all detainees have the right to bail, which is decided by a judge.
Mary Creagh
Despite compelling evidence of the harm caused to children by the indefinite detention of their parents, the Home Office continues to separate them in an arbitrary and cruel manner, but its replies to my questions show that it has no idea how many children are currently separated. The Department paid £50,000 in compensation after a three-year-old girl was unlawfully separated from her father, who was placed in immigration detention. She was reunited with him just days before she was due to be placed for adoption. What is the Minister doing to get a grip on the situation, stop this unlawful practice, tell us how many children are affected and reunite them with their families?
Caroline Nokes
In the case raised by the hon. Lady, the Home Office acknowledged its mistakes and indeed paid compensation. It is worth remembering that more than 1,000 children went into detention in 2009, whereas only 44 did so in the last year for which figures are available. The Home Office has taken significant steps to ensure that children are not detained with their parents, and they can be in an immigration removal centre only when they can be removed within 72 hours.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
This year, Bail for Immigration Detainees has represented 155 parents separated from their children while in immigration detention, yet the Prime Minister states that that is not the Government’s practice. Can the Minister condemn the practice and finally stop it?
Caroline Nokes
There is clear and published guidance on how a family unit may be defined, and on the separation of individuals from their family group for immigration reasons. Cases may involve pre-existing separation of family units for non-immigration reasons. For instance, in the case of foreign criminals, children might already have been taken into care when the individual received a custodial sentence.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has condemned Trump’s family separation policy, but this Government’s hostile environment separates parents from their children every day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) pointed out, last week the Home Office was forced to pay £40,000 in damages for falsely imprisoning a father, unlawfully separating him from his daughter for three months. The Home Office failed at every stage of the process. The Home Secretary has said that he will pause the hostile environment, but immigration detention is a key part of it. Will the Government look again at indefinite detention, and at the use of detention more widely, and publish the Shaw review in good time for us to examine it before the summer recess?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that some cases might involve pre-existing separation. As I have highlighted, back in 2009 there were more than 1,000 children in detention, and that number has now been reduced to 44. The Home Office has acknowledged the mistakes that were made in the case he mentioned, but it is important to reflect on the role that detention plays in ensuring that those who have no right to be here and no right to our public services are removed in a timely manner.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
In April, we published our serious violence strategy, which sets out a range of factors driving increases in violent crime. Our analysis shows that changes in the drugs market are a major factor behind the recent increases in serious violence.
Gill Furniss
South Yorkshire police have seen their budget reduce by £66 million in real terms since 2010, and they expect more to come. In Sheffield, knife crime has increased by 41% over the past year. Does the Minister agree that reducing police numbers has a direct effect on this staggering upward trend in violent crime, which has led to many tragic deaths and left many families grieving?
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. She will know that the South Yorkshire constabulary is receiving an extra £5 million this year and that the Government have protected police funding since 2015. Indeed, police constabularies across the country will see up to £460 million more in funding with the help of police and crime commissioners. Serious violence has to be tackled as part of a national strategy, which is exactly what we have set out.
Mohammad Yasin
Bedfordshire police are under unprecedented pressure: violent crime is up; they face the third largest terrorist threat in the country; and they have had to support the visit of President Trump and deal with an increase in mental health cases. Can the Secretary of State explain how the police can keep the people of Bedford safe when they do not have the resources to attend 999 calls?
Victoria Atkins
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would agree with me that the way in which Bedfordshire is kept safe is through the excellent work of its police officers and its Conservative police and crime commissioner, who has managed to increase officer numbers in her constabulary by 6.5% over the past year.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Has the Minister read the evidence produced by the Home Office for the serious violence strategy, which shows that it is highly likely that police cuts have contributed to the rise in violent crime? If she has not, will she publish it?
Victoria Atkins
This rather demonstrates the difference between this Government and the right hon. Gentleman’s party. We are concerned with answering the question that the public ask us: how can we make our country safer? We have taken a cold, hard look at the rise in serious violence, and we have drawn together, from a range of parties, including the police, healthcare providers, schools and so on, the serious violence strategy, and it is through that strategy, with the help of those providers, that we will tackle this issue.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Today, the Daily Mail published the results of an exclusive survey, which showed that 57% of people say that police officers have surrendered control of our neighbourhoods and criminals have no fear of being caught; a quarter of people do not feel safe going out at night; and more than half of respondents who reported a crime did not have a police officer attend. Does the Minister accept any responsibility for those figures, or does the Home Office still labour under the dangerous delusion that its cuts have not affected community safety?
Victoria Atkins
I gently remind the hon. Lady that the Government have provided £460 million in additional funding for the police this year, which I understand she voted against. Again, we have to look at this as a strategy. The problem cannot be solved by police officers alone, vital though they are. Early intervention and tackling young people before they get dragged into criminality are key, and I hope that the Labour party will support the Offensive Weapons Bill, which gives the police the powers they need.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
Our review of air weapons regulations received about 50,000 representations. We are just finalising our consideration of those and my intention is to publish our conclusions as soon as possible after the summer recess.
Karin Smyth
The hallmark of this Question Time is delay. The review was announced in response to my Adjournment debate last October, following the shooting of 18-month-old Harry Studley in my constituency. The family submitted a response on 5 February, which was acknowledged on 22 February. Already, almost five months have passed and they have had nothing in return. Such a delay is insensitive and unacceptable to victims of such crimes. What assurance can the Minister give the Studley family that, over the next few months, they will be treated with more respect by the review?
Mr Hurd
I assure the hon. Lady that it is not a question of respect. I know how strongly she feels about the matter, not least on behalf of the Studley family. She knows that the review was in response to a recommendation by the coroner in another case. She also knows that the issue divides opinion and that many people have strong views about it. I hope that she agrees that the most important thing is to get this raised. Once we have finalised what we are going to do, I will be happy to sit down with her and discuss it.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The targets for those who use air weapons are not only people. Last year, the RSPCA had 900 calls about attacks on animals. Is the Minister considering increasing the penalties for people who are caught and convicted of that heinous crime?
Mr Hurd
I assure my right hon. Friend that we are looking at all our options on a spectrum. We have a set of regulations on the use of airguns, but we are considering how we can strengthen them in a proportionate way that gives greater protection particularly to children and, to answer my right hon. Friend’s point, animals, which are often the victims of those guns.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Home Office shares reports of the loss or theft of UK passports via Interpol to prevent the illegal crossing of borders. We also work closely with partners here and overseas to share information and intelligence on that threat and the websites that purport to sell false and genuine documents for criminal purposes.
Stephen Doughty
There have been some very worrying reports in the past month that British passports have been stolen and sold for large sums of money in countries around Europe. How many passports have been stolen and subsequently suspended in the past year? Does the Minister agree that it is crucial to co-operate through Europol as well as Interpol to ensure that those stolen identity documents are not used?
Mr Wallace
In 2017, less than 1% of passports were reported stolen, but to tackle the threat and the abuse of stolen passports overseas, we have based immigration enforcement officials at international locations—embassies, high commissions and key transit points—to work not only with law enforcement to try to catch the people committing the fraud, but with airlines and border points so that they can spot what a false passport looks like.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The Home Office has confirmed that it takes on average 73 days for people to report lost and stolen passports and that many countries do not regularly use Interpol’s stolen and lost travel documents database to check lost and stolen passports. What are the Government doing to encourage the true utilisation of both methods to stop the illegal trade of those documents?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is why in 2014 the Passport Office introduced an online tool for reporting. Since then, the number of passports lost has increased annually by 33%, so it is much easier to ensure they are reported and then picked up when being used.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
There is no set time, as each case progresses on its own merits. Wherever possible, we afford people the opportunity to arrange a voluntary return to their country of origin. If someone does not comply with our directions to leave the UK, we will pursue an enforced removal. Again, timescales will depend on individual circumstances.
Gordon Henderson
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response, but can she reassure me that the Department is balancing the need to tackle illegal immigration with the need to protect those who have migrated to Britain legally?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend is of course absolutely right to point out how important it is that we distinguish between people who settle here legally and those who are here illegally. It is vital that the compliant environment protects vulnerable people and that appropriate safeguards are built into the measures. We remain committed to tackling illegal immigration and to encouraging compliance with our rules and laws.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
This weekend, we learned of an Ethiopian asylum seeker who was removed even before his application had been decided, requiring a court to order his return here. How did that happen, and is it not now time to hand asylum decisions over to an independent body?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong in the final part of his question. It is important that UK Visas and Immigration continues to work to establish people’s right to be here on a fair and humane basis. The Home Office is absolutely committed to making sure that we consider each case on its own merits.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
I am committed to establishing a compensation scheme as quickly and as carefully as possible to help address what has gone wrong. The design of the scheme is naturally complex. I am therefore determined that we get it right and that we properly listen to those affected before taking final decisions on the design.
Helen Hayes
The Windrush scandal and the Government’s wider hostile environment policy have created an urgent need for independent advice for Windrush citizens seeking to confirm their status and access compensation. As there is no trust in the Home Office, the Black Cultural Archives in my constituency has for several months been running legal advice clinics for Windrush citizens, staffed by volunteer lawyers. They have seen hundreds of people and there remains unmet need. This essential work should not fall to volunteers. Does the Home Secretary recognise the need for independent advice from trusted organisations such as the Black Cultural Archives, and will he provide funding to enable independent advice to be available to everyone who needs it?
Sajid Javid
When I became Home Secretary, I said it was my first priority to help those affected by the Windrush situation. That is why one of the first things we did was properly staff the taskforce, and over 100 officials now work on it, ensuring that people are listened to and that applications are processed quickly. More than 2,000 applications have already been processed, most of them in a single day. Last week, we announced that some 584 applications for citizenship have been granted. I think we are dealing with this appropriately. I am always happy to listen to fresh ideas, but I think this is being taken very seriously by the Government.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
A couple of months ago, I raised the issue of Raj Unalkat who was thrown out of Uganda and came to live in Taunton Deane for 40 years. As with the Windrush cases, he was welcomed to the UK but then told that he was going to be thrown out because he had no passport. Great news: today we have heard that he has got his passport. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking everyone who helped and in praising our fast-track system, which is absolutely working? Will he work with me to try to get compensation for the work days Raj has missed?
Sajid Javid
I happily join my hon. Friend in welcoming that outcome. Of course mistakes are sometimes made in an organisation as big as the Home Office, with tens of thousands of applications to deal with each year, but it is appropriate that when mistakes are made they are corrected.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary’s letter to the Select Committee on hardship issues appears to suggest that members of the Windrush generation have been asked to sign non-disclosure agreements to get financial help before the full compensation scheme comes in. Will he confirm whether that is the case? If so, how many people have been asked to do so? Does he agree that it would be shocking if people who have been wronged by the Home Office are now being gagged by the Home Office to get the hardship support they need?
Sajid Javid
Let me be very clear that we are in the process of designing a compensation scheme. There has already been a call for evidence, and I will shortly be launching a consultation. Its design is going to be overseen independently by Martin Forde QC, and there will be no question with respect to the compensation scheme—no one will be asked to sign any kind of non-disclosure agreement or anything like that.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
We have recovered £1.6 billion under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 since 2010 and frozen many hundreds of millions more. The Government are also implementing the recommendations made in the Public Accounts Committee report of 2016. Our asset recovery action plan, to be published shortly, sets out how we will strengthen the regime by making the best use of new and existing powers, improving operational systems and ensuring that efforts are targeted effectively.
Dr Johnson
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Lincolnshire police have been working hard to reduce hare coursing. The removal of dogs has been the most effective deterrent, but kennelling costs are now running to tens of thousands of pounds for Lincolnshire police. Will he look at what can be done to ensure that these costs, too, can be recovered from the criminal, rather than being borne by the taxpayer?
Mr Wallace
Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, police and prosecutors have the power to recover either profit or money accrued by those criminals from those processes. When they take that money, under ARIS—the asset recovery incentivisation scheme—50% of it or more will be released back to law enforcement prosecutors so that they can invest.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
The UK Government value the role of faith in public life in the UK, and protecting religious freedom abroad is important, including in achieving the UK’s vision of a more secure and prosperous United Kingdom with its overseas partners. Within UK Visas and Immigration asylum casework, we continue to engage a range of faith groups to improve our policy guidance and training provided to decision makers, so that we approach claims involving religious persecution and conversion to a particular faith in the appropriate way.
Sir Edward Leigh
Will the Minister set up a specialised unit in the Home Office so that we can have some religious literacy on this matter? Nuns and priests seeking to come from Iraq have been asked why they do not have a bank account, with officials seemingly unaware that they have made vows of poverty. A sister from Qaraqosh in Iraq is a perfect example: seeking to visit her sick sister, she was asked why she had not visited her since 2011. Officials were seemingly unaware that ISIS had forced her to flee from her convent and to flee for her life. Please may we have more religious literacy from our officials?
Caroline Nokes
When it comes to visitor visas, it is of course important that each case is decided on its own merits, but my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am very happy to work with him, so that there can be better training for visa caseworkers so that they understand the specific points he makes about those from religious communities who may have taken a particular vow of poverty.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Minister was here for Prayers, so I am sure she will be able to answer the question asked of one of my constituents, whom the Home Office initially wanted to send back to a country where he was persecuted: how many books are there in the Old Testament?
Caroline Nokes
I very much regret that despite a good convent education we studied only the New Testament, and I simply do not know.
Mr Speaker
It was very useful nevertheless to learn about the Minister’s educational journey, which she regales the House with in a candid spirit.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
On Thursday, I was lucky enough to be invited to the Police Bravery Awards. The top award of the night went to PC Keith Palmer who was fatally stabbed outside Parliament and to PC Charlie Guenigault who ran towards three terrorists who attacked the public at London Bridge. The awards were a reminder of the courage and dedication of our emergency services, which we have also seen most recently in Salisbury and Amesbury. Across the UK, police acts of bravery, both big and small, take place every single day. I am sure that the House will want to join me in taking this opportunity to say thank you to our police officers for their extraordinary bravery, hard work and sacrifice.
Stephen Timms
I join the Home Secretary in those tributes. I asked the Immigration Minister in the House last week to offer students whose visas were cancelled for allegedly cheating in TOEIC—test of english for international communication—English tests a new secure test to see whether they can resume their studies. Her reply was:
“It is, of course, an issue that we are considering very carefully.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 1121.]
Will she indicate to the House when she expects to reach a decision?
Sajid Javid
This is an important issue and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised it with the Immigration Minister. She is looking at it very carefully. She has asked for extra advice and expects to respond very shortly.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
My hon. Friend asks an important question. We have set up the joint fraud taskforce, bringing trading standards and the private sector, including banks, on board, along with law enforcement agencies, to make sure we work together. For example, it has produced a banking protocol under which banks train till staff to spot vulnerable people being exploited. So far, that work has prevented £21 million from being taken out of bank accounts and led to 180 arrests.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Five months after the interim guidance on discretionary leave for victims of modern slavery, published in response to the PK (Ghana) judgment, too many victims are still being left in limbo. Do we know how many victims have received temporary status or even know their status? When will the Government update their guidance and end this human Russian roulette?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
The hon. Lady will know that the Government are looking to review and reform the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which is world leading, to ensure that its practices stay in track with the criminal gangs that support modern slavery. She will also know that we have announced substantial reforms to the national referral mechanism that I hope will address the points she has raised.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
Sajid Javid
It has made significant preparations. We are looking at issues around security, borders and people. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely right to ask all Departments to step up preparations. It is the prudent thing to do—that is why we are doing it. We want to prepare for all outcomes. It is very important that we send a strong message to the European Union that, while we want a deal, we will not accept a bad deal.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when detention is being considered every case must now go through a single detention gatekeeper, but I will undertake to look very closely at the case he raises. Our adults at risk policy, which Stephen Shaw recently reviewed, will be part of the response that the Home Secretary will bring forward before the recess.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Mr Wallace
The common travel area was in existence long before the EU and all parties have agreed and signed up to continue those historical arrangements. In Northern Ireland, for example, we have always done checks in respect of immigration, customs and duty and, of course, simple criminal movement of individuals. That has always gone on and will always do so.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Caroline Nokes
I was very pleased to meet elected representatives and officials from Newcastle City Council last week, when we discussed dispersed asylum accommodation. The Home Office has worked closely with our providers to improve property standards over the lifetime of the current asylum accommodation contracts and ensure that they continue to provide accommodation that is safe, habitable, fit for purpose and adequately equipped. We will thoroughly investigate any reports of poor property standards.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
My hon. Friend and I have had many conversations, and I know how strongly he feels about the adequacy of policing in his constituency. He will be aware that a further £3 million has gone into Bedfordshire’s policing this year, so there is a conversation to be had about resources, but we need to ensure that the 2019-20 funding settlement and the next comprehensive spending review provide for our police forces—including Bedfordshire’s—to be properly resourced.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Caroline Nokes
Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman. The Home Office is not undermining good maritime jobs; it is working with all partners to ensure that as we leave the EU there are appropriate employment opportunities, which will be set out in the forthcoming immigration White Paper.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I know that, in seeking to tackle terrorism, the Home Secretary will always ensure that the security services have the resources and powers that they need, but will he reassure me on one point? Does he agree that, in ensuring that there are no safe spaces for those who wish to do us harm, we should consider tackling the incitement of terrorism in private as well as public settings?
Sajid Javid
I do agree with my hon. Friend. As he will know, the House is considering the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, which gives us a fresh opportunity to review the possibility of loopholes in earlier legislation.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Caroline Nokes
We constantly keep the shortage occupation list under review and work closely with the Migration Advisory Committee to ensure that the appropriate occupations are indeed on that list.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
My constituency grows more than 30% of Scotland’s soft fruit. Will the Home Secretary meet me so that I can discuss the issues that my local farmers are facing, and we can arrive at solutions sooner rather than later?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend has raised an important issue—the need to ensure that we have seasonal agricultural labour—and I should be happy to meet her and other colleagues to discuss it further.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Victoria Atkins
That is a most interesting point, and I should be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Tomorrow, my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) will lead a debate in Westminster Hall on labour shortages in the inshore fishing industry. Will my right hon. Friend consider reintroducing a concession in the current visa rules that would allow non-EEA fishermen to come to this country to work within the 12-mile limit and support the regeneration of our inshore fishing fleets?
Caroline Nokes
Not only will there be that debate tomorrow, but there was an Adjournment debate on the subject last week. I said then, and I repeat now, that we will work closely with the Migration Advisory Committee, whose report is due in September, to understand the specific needs of the fishing industry. I have also offered to meet representatives in Scotland this summer.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Simon Chesterman of the National Police Chiefs Council has suggested that police officers in rural communities could be routinely armed to avoid the provision of funds for specialist armed response units. Will the Minister provide the funds that those units need, rather than eroding public trust by arming police officers?
Mr Hurd
The hon. Gentleman knows that the model of British policing has non-armed officers at its core, but where an operational need arises specialist armed officers should be available to be deployed. He will also know that we are investing £144 million of taxpayers’ money to upgrade that capability.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
Emergency services around the UK know how brave and expert our cave rescue services are in the way they support emergency services in this country. Does the Home Secretary share my admiration for two of my constituents who were involved in the Thai cave rescue, along with the other two British rescuers, who did such brilliant work to bring those 12 boys and their coach out alive last week?
Sajid Javid
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in commending the courage and bravery shown by those cave rescuers in saving lives: Robert Harper, Chris Jewell, Jason Mallison and Tim Acton. This whole House commends them.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Last week, a much loved grandmother, Riasat Bi, was murdered in her own home during a knife fight; she was 86. West Midlands police are doing everything they can to respond to the growing spiral of violence in east Birmingham, but they need help. The force is at its smallest size since 1974: it needs new investment and we need new investment in youth services. Will the Home Secretary listen to our experience in east Birmingham as he prepares his bid for the Budget later this year?
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Gentleman rightly raises an important issue, and it reminds the whole House how much more needs to be done to fight the rise in serious violence that we are seeing. Our serious violence strategy is dealing with much of that; it will take time as the issues are complex, but it is right that we work more closely with West Midlands police to see what more we can do.
NATO Summit
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the NATO summit in Brussels last week.
Transatlantic unity has been fundamental to the protection and projection of our interests and values for generations. At a time when we are facing dangerous and unpredictable threats—from state and non-state actors and from the use of chemical weapons, terrorism and cyber-attack—NATO remains as vital to our collective security as it has ever been. So the focus of this summit was on strengthening the alliance, including through greater burden sharing, stepping up our collective efforts to meet the threats of today and enhancing NATO’s capability to meet the threats of tomorrow. The UK played an important role in securing progress on all three.
The UK is proud to have the second largest defence budget in NATO after the United States and the largest in Europe. We are increasing our defence spending in every year of this Parliament. We are meeting our NATO commitments to spend 2% of our GDP on defence, and 20% of that on equipment. We are investing heavily in modernising our armed forces, with plans to spend £180 billion on equipment and support over the next 10 years. This morning, I announced the publication of the UK’s combat air strategy, confirming our commitment to maintaining our world-class air power capabilities. This is backed by our future combat air system technology initiative, which will deliver over £2 billion of investment over 10 years and lay the groundwork for the Typhoon successor programme. We are deploying the full spectrum of our capabilities in support of the NATO alliance.
In the week in which we marked the centenary of our extraordinary Royal Air Force, I was proud to be able to announce at the summit the additional deployment of UK fighter jets to NATO air policing missions. We are also leading standing NATO maritime groups, contributing our nuclear deterrent to the security of Europe as a whole and continuing our commitment to NATO missions, including in Estonia where we lead NATO’s enhanced forward presence. But as the UK plays this leading role in the security of the whole continent, it is right that we work to even burden sharing across the alliance and that other allies step up and contribute more to our shared defence.
The summit included an additional session in response to the challenge posed by President Trump on exactly this point. Non-US allies are already doing more, with their spending increasing by $41 billion in 2017 alone, and by a total of $87 billion since the Wales defence investment pledge was adopted in 2014. These are the largest increases in non-US spending in a quarter of a century. Over the decade to 2024, we are expecting that spending to have increased by hundreds of billions, but NATO allies must go further in increasing their defence spending and capability. During the summit, leaders agreed that all were committed to fairer burden sharing and that they had a shared sense of urgency to do more. That is in all our interests.
Turning to specific threats, there was an extensive discussion on Russia. The appalling use of a nerve agent in Salisbury is another example of Russia’s growing disregard for the global norms and laws that keep us all safe and a further example of a well-established pattern of behaviour to undermine western democracies and damage our interests around the world. In recent years, we have seen Russia stepping up its arms sales to Iran, shielding the Syrian regime’s barbaric use of chemical weapons, launching cyber-attacks that have caused economic damage and spreading malicious and fake news stories on an industrial scale.
Our long-term objective remains a constructive relationship with Russia, so it is right that we keep engaging, both as individual nations and as a NATO alliance. I welcome the meeting between President Trump and President Putin in Helsinki today, but as I agreed with President Trump in our discussions last week, we must engage from a position of unity and strength. This means being clear and unwavering about where Russia needs to change its behaviour, and for as long as Russia persists in its efforts to undermine our interests and values, we must continue to deter and counter them. That is exactly what we will do. In that context, in a separate discussion during the summit, the alliance also reaffirmed our unwavering support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia and Ukraine. We continue to support both Georgia and Ukraine in their aspirations for full membership of the alliance. The alliance also extended an invitation to the Government of Skopje to start accession talks following their historic agreement with Athens. This builds further on the progress made earlier in the week in London at the western Balkans summit, which took important steps to strengthen the stability and prosperity of the region.
For part of the summit, we were joined by President Ghani, who provided an update on the situation in Afghanistan. There are encouraging signs of progress towards a peace process, and allies were united in our strong support for his efforts, but the security situation remains challenging and is compounded further by Daesh fighters who have fled out of Iraq and Syria. So, as my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary announced to the House last Wednesday, at this summit we increased our support for NATO’s mission Resolute Support with a further uplift of 440 UK troops for the UK-led Kabul security force. This will take our total troop commitment in Afghanistan to around 1,100.
Together with all allies, we also committed additional financial support for the sustainment of the Afghan national defence and security forces until 2024. As I discussed with President Trump at the summit, our commitment to Afghanistan began as NATO’s only use of article 5, acting in support of the United States following the attack on New York’s World Trade Centre. Our uplift will also enable the release of US personnel to conduct increased mentoring and counter-terrorism activity across Afghanistan. The summit also agreed to extend defence capacity building to Tunisia, Jordan and Iraq, and the UK’s contribution will play a vital role, particularly in increasing our support to the Iraqi Government in strengthening their security institutions and promoting stability for the longer term.
Facing today’s challenges is not enough. In the UK, our modernising defence programme will ensure that our capabilities remain as potent in meeting the threats of tomorrow as they are in keeping us safe today. NATO too must adapt to meet these challenges. This means delivering the reforms agreed at the Wales and Warsaw summits politically, militarily and institutionally. At this summit, allies agreed a stronger NATO command structure, including two new headquarters, and the UK is committing more than 100 new posts to that structure, taking our commitment to more than 1,000 UK service personnel. We also agreed to improve the readiness of our forces through NATO’s readiness initiative known as the “Four Thirties”. This is a commitment to have, by 2020, 30 mechanised battalions, 30 air squadrons and 30 combat vessels, all ready to use within 30 days. The UK will play its full part in delivering this.
We also agreed further work to help to counter cyber and hybrid threats by enhancing the capabilities of the alliance to respond quickly and effectively to these new challenges. This includes a new cyber-operations centre and new support teams that will be able to assist allies who want help, either in preparing to respond, or responding, to an attack. Again the UK is at the forefront of these efforts. For example, we were the first country to offer our national offensive cyber-capabilities to the alliance, and we have also committed to host the NATO cyber-defence pledge conference in 2019.
As I have said many times, the UK is unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security. That is why I have proposed a bold new security partnership between the UK and the EU for after we leave. But in a world where the threats to Europe’s security often emanate from beyond its borders and where we face an array of profound challenges to the entire rules-based international order, the strength and endurance of our transatlantic alliance is vital in protecting our shared security and projecting our shared values. That is why a strong, united and modern NATO remains the cornerstone of our security, and why our commitment to it is ironclad. As we have done across generations, we will stand shoulder to shoulder with our closest allies to defend the rules-based order and the liberal values of democracy, human rights and justice that define our way of life. I commend this statement to the House.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of the statement.
At the heart of any military alliance is the aim that rogue players cannot derail established Governments. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has reflected on that as she deals with the present threat from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg).
Protecting the British people will always be our first priority. From climate change chaos, cyber-attacks and acts of terrorism to perpetual conflicts in the most fragile parts of the word, it is the Government’s duty to ensure that their approach addresses the drivers of those security challenges. As one of the richest countries in the world and a member of NATO and of the UN Security Council, we have a real responsibility to ensure that our policy provides real security for our country and does not fuel insecurity beyond our borders. Last week’s NATO summit was an opportunity for the alliance to reset its approach to some of those challenges.
Once again, however, another global gathering has been dominated by the erratic statements of President Trump. Did the US President ask the Prime Minister and other NATO leaders to double defence spending to 4%? Did the President outline how threats to our security had doubled over the course of the past week? Are the Government seriously considering that increase? In 2014, NATO countries agreed to meet the 2% target by 2024. Does that remain the case? Labour is committed to spend the agreed target of 2%. Furthermore, does she agree with President Trump that Germany is “a captive of Russia”? Under no circumstances can our policies be outsourced to the whims of Washington. Of course, we all await the outcome of the Helsinki meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin. Will the Prime Minister condemn President Trump’s intervention on his preferred choice as her successor as Prime Minister of this country?
NATO states that seek to destabilise and undermine democracy and national independence, whoever they are—including, but not only Russia—must be held fully accountable under international law and collective engagement. In addition, the use of chemical weapons as a form of war, whether on the streets of Salisbury or in the cities of Syria, is deplorable and must not be tolerated. NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg was right to say recently that NATO’s dialogue with Russia is not easy and that the more difficult Russia is, the more we need dialogue. However, democratic regression among NATO Governments makes that approach more difficult.
NATO prides itself as being the guarantor of freedom and security in the world, so it must be held to a higher standard. The rise in authoritarianism and the suppression of basic human rights in many countries should be of great concern. The Brussels declaration highlighted how arms control
“should continue to make an essential contribution to achieving the Alliance’s security objectives”,
so what steps is the Prime Minister taking to drive forward the effort on that? Does she agree that UK arms sales to countries with poor human rights records undermines their citizens’ freedom and security, and will she therefore finally suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia while bombs rain down on the people of Yemen?
On Europe, it is vital that Parliament fully understands what the Government are proposing for their future defence partnership with the EU after Brexit. However, on yet another fundamental issue, the Government’s White Paper is lacking. There is no substance on UK-EU co-operation over diplomatic collaboration, intelligence sharing, or defence and security policy. While the aspiration to strengthen ties with the EU and NATO on issues of cyber-security is welcome, the White Paper offers little clarity on how that might be delivered. Does the Prime Minister accept that her chaotic approach to the Brexit negotiations risks future security and defence co-operation with the European Union?
The “bomb first, talk later” approach to security has clearly failed, leaving a trail of destruction abroad and leaving us less safe at home. NATO talks of wanting to work more closely with the United Nations, but that means treating the United Nations with respect and ending double standards. In Libya, Sudan and South Sudan, this Government are the responsible penholder on the UN Security Council, yet they have failed to deliver long-term political settlements. Hopefully, the new Foreign Secretary can succeed where his predecessor failed, or did not make sufficient effort to succeed.
The Government have deployed additional troops in Afghanistan to support the Government in Kabul. Can the Prime Minister be clear that those troops are there in a training capacity only and that there will be no mission creep?
Our security is collective—it cannot be achieved at the expense of others. Aggressive military intervention, destabilising democratic institutions, tearing up hard-won international agreements and disregarding human rights and international law are a new threat. Governments on that track must change course.
Labour in government will deepen our commitment to UN peacekeeping and will work with allies who strive for peace, diplomacy and real security for all people. That is how we will deliver real security in a changing world.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of issues. He talks about President Trump’s intervention at the NATO summit, and President Trump has made a difference. We share the President’s view that we want to see allies all stepping up to meet the commitment they gave at the summit here in Wales in 2014 to spend 2% of their GDP on defence and to spend 20% of that on equipment. That is something we meet, as do a limited number of other NATO members, obviously including the United States of America.
President Trump’s making this point about burden sharing has made a difference. As I said in my statement, in just the last year we have seen an extra $41 billion added to defence budgets across the NATO allies. There was a real sense at this summit, following the discussion that he initiated, that we will see not just people stepping up to meet their 2% target, but an increased urgency in doing so.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about Germany and its relationship with Russia. Can I just say to him that Germany was one of the many countries in Europe and across the rest of the world that stood shoulder to shoulder with the United Kingdom after the attack in Salisbury? Germany did expel Russian intelligence officers and took a very firm view in relation to Russia.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about arms exports. Of course, as he knows, we have one of the strongest arms export regimes in the world, and all decisions are taken very carefully against that background. He talks about our future relationship with the European Union. We will have a fully independent defence and foreign policy, but we will work with our European Union allies where it is right to do so, just as we will continue to work within NATO.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about how we ensure that we have security around the world. Well, NATO has been the backbone of Europe’s security for the years in which it has been in place. We continue to support NATO, and it sounds as if he has changed his mind about NATO, because it was not that long ago that he said about NATO, “I’d rather we weren’t in it,” and, “Why don’t we turn it around and close down NATO?” Well, we are not going to close down NATO. The United Kingdom will continue to contribute to NATO as the backbone of European security and wider security around the world.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on what I think was for her a successful NATO summit. May I return her to the point of the Germans and the issue of energy? Exactly what discussions and conversations have taken place with the Germans concerning the Nord Stream 2 pipeline? If Germany insists on going ahead unilaterally with this pipeline, it will have the strategic effect of diminishing the likelihood of Ukraine and others being able to support themselves.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend has, of course, raised an important issue. This subject has been discussed on a number of occasions around the European Council table and it will continue to be discussed around that table. Obviously, we recognise the concerns that have been raised in relation to Nord Stream 2 and, in particular, in relation to the impact it would have on Ukraine. We will continue to talk, not only with Germany, but with other European allies, about this issue, and we will contribute to that discussion around the European Council table. There is a growing recognition that this issue needs to be addressed and a growing recognition of the concerns that have been raised.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement. I thank the thousands of Scots who protested in peace over the weekend and of course the officers of Police Scotland, who did such an excellent job, working around the clock.
Last week, we witnessed extraordinary scenes at the NATO summit. The President of the United States flew to Brussels to lecture the NATO allies on their commitments to defence. These were embarrassing, shambolic scenes from a US President who takes a childish approach to foreign and security policy, rather than working with allies to tackle common security threats. What is more embarrassing is that, after this treatment, we witnessed the Prime Minister roll out the carpet to the President as he visited the UK. This is a President who went on to publicly criticise the Prime Minister’s Brexit plans after advising the Prime Minister to sue the European Union—you really could not make it up. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether she intends to use the President’s advice and does his advice not give her a real sense of reality of just how shambolic any trade deal with the US Trump Administration would be? I would advise the Prime Minister that, instead of seeking advice on Brexit from the President of the United States, she should seek it directly from the devolved Governments, who are directly affected by her Brexit chaos.
We are of course today witnessing historic scenes as the US and Russian Presidents meet in Helsinki. There are high stakes in this summit; China, nuclear weapons, Syria, Ukraine and US election hacking are all set to be discussed. I thank the Prime Minister for the remarks she made about Ukraine, as we should all make sure we stand up for the independence of that nation. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what discussions she had with President Trump on operations in Syria at the NATO summit last week?
The Prime Minister
First, let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that we continue to support Ukraine. As I said in my statement, we continue to support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and Georgia. Obviously, we are supporting the Government of Ukraine in a number of ways, but we also recognise that there needs to be reform in Ukraine.
We want to see the Minsk agreements fully put in place. Obviously, the failure of that is why we have been supporting, within the European Union, the continued imposition of the sanctions that were introduced in response to the action that Russia took in Crimea.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about President Trump and his approach to the NATO summit. As I said, President Trump has made a difference; he has focused the eyes of those around the table on the question of the 2% commitment. As I said in my statement and have just repeated, $41 billion of extra investment in defence has been seen across the allies just over the last year. In fact, the United States itself has increased its defence input into Europe over the last year or so—in capability terms and also in financial terms.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the importance of working with devolved Governments. We continue to work with the devolved Governments on a whole range of issues, including the European issue that he referred to. I would hope that the Government in Scotland would be willing to work with us on these issues, because we will deliver something that is in the interests of the whole United Kingdom.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. There is considerable interest, which is to be anticipated, but I make two points to the House. First, there is a statement to follow, in which there may well be considerable interest. Secondly, we have a substantial debate on the remaining stages of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, necessitating brevity in this session, from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike, and the non-participation of people who arrived after the Prime Minister had delivered her statement.
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Although the opening of accession talks with the Government in Skopje is to be welcomed, will the Prime Minister also confirm that, irrespective of Russia’s views, future membership of the alliance is open to any other country that meets the membership criteria, including other countries in the western Balkans?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that confirmation. Indeed, we look forward to seeing others aspire to membership of the NATO alliance. It is important that they meet the criteria for membership. At the NATO summit, Montenegro was of course sitting around the table, having already become a member of the NATO alliance, and we were pleased to extend that invitation to Skopje. Other countries could follow, provided that they meet the criteria.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister rightly said in her statement that the United Kingdom is “unconditionally committed” to Europe’s security, but over the weekend President Trump described the European Union as a “foe” and the German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said that Europe can no longer completely rely on the White House. Does the Prime Minister share that assessment and, if not, why not?
The Prime Minister
When everybody left the NATO summit that took place last week, what was felt was not only that people had stepped up and recognised the importance of burden sharing, but that there was indeed a unity around that table on the importance of us all working together in the future of Europe’s security. As I reminded President Trump, the one time that NATO has used article 5 has been in response to an attack on the United States.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s support for Ukraine and the recognition of the potential threat of Nord Stream 2. Will she confirm that there is absolutely no question of any NATO member country recognising the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula by the Russian Federation?
The Prime Minister
We are very clear—as was, I think, everybody around that table—that an illegal annexation took place. Significant support was shown for Ukraine around that table. There are of course requirements on Ukraine and Georgia for their potential future membership of NATO, but we look forward to working with them to help them to meet those requirements.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I have often supported the Prime Minister on security and countering terrorism, because extremists must never divide us, but one of our NATO allies, President Trump, chose to single out London’s Mayor, who is Muslim, and attack him on terrorism. I know that the Prime Minister will not agree with President Trump and will understand what a vile and false attack that was, but has she said so to President Trump? Has she challenged him on it? We cannot pander when our democratic values are under attack.
The Prime Minister
I have made it clear to President Trump on a number of occasions that some of the views that he expresses about the United Kingdom on these issues are not shared by this Government. There are issues on which I disagree with the Mayor of London—for example, I want to see him building more homes in London than he is doing—but on the issue of fighting terrorism, the Mayor of London and this Government work together, as we did last year following what happened here in Westminster and at London Bridge and Finsbury Park. It is an issue on which we unite, because we all recognise the importance of ensuring that the terrorists can never divide us.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Given President Putin’s long-term goals of destabilising the European Union, seeking to restore Russian influence in eastern Europe and undermining NATO, is it not important—and was it not discussed at length during the NATO summit—that NATO’s strategic concepts continue to advance at pace, and that the British Government should therefore wholeheartedly support the 30-30-30-30 proposal, generated by our great friend General Mattis?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give my right hon. Friend the assurance that we do support the four-30s approach that has been adopted by NATO. We will ensure that we are able to contribute to it as appropriate. He is also right that, as NATO looks at the threats that we face, it needs to modernise and reform itself and consider the capabilities that it needs for the future.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
NATO has been the bedrock of our security since the second world war and a vital commitment to collective security, but at times during the summer President Trump’s behaviour was disruptive and undermining. Can the Prime Minister assure this House that she took action to impress on him that that is not acceptable in those circumstances?
The Prime Minister
What I have impressed on President Trump on a number of occasions now, starting with the very first visit that I made to the United States following his inauguration, was the importance of NATO and the importance of that transatlantic unity. That was a message that came through loud and clear at the summit.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
We welcome the Prime Minister’s recommitment to the principle of NATO being the cornerstone of Europe’s defence policy, and she is absolutely right to talk about a close relationship with our current EU partners post Brexit, but will she exclude dedicating any Ministry of Defence resources or British taxpayers’ money to advancing the cause of a European army?
The Prime Minister
I think my right hon. Friend knows full well the views that the UK Government have taken for some time now on the concept of an EU army—a European army. There have been developments around the European Union table, and there continue to be, in the defence field. We have been very clear that those must be complementary to NATO, and that is a view that is accepted.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Prime Minister agree that peace and prosperity since the last world war have been secured by the United Nations, by NATO and by the European Union? Does she agree that she now has a real opportunity to be the real leader, reminding all our European allies that she has this responsibility?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right that we have a number of multinational organisations. As I said in my response to earlier questions, NATO has been the bedrock of European security. The unity of NATO and that continued transatlantic unity is important not just for Europe, but for the United States and the wider world, and we will continue to champion it.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that any idea that Europe could defend itself conventionally against an aggressive Russia is a dangerous fantasy if the United States is not involved?
The Prime Minister
The United States obviously plays a very important role within the NATO alliance, but may I also remark—my right hon. Friend made the comment about defending conventionally against attacks from Russia—that, as we look at NATO for the future, we need to look not just at the conventional capabilities and the conventional threats. That is why I am proud that the United Kingdom was the first to put its offensive cyber-capability to the benefit of the alliance.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
What assurances did President Trump give the Prime Minister that he would raise with President Putin the poisoning of the Skripals and the murder of Dawn Sturgess on British soil? It is unacceptable that Russia has put lives at risk, with poisonous substances being left to kill innocent people on the streets of our country. If President Trump is our ally, he will raise this. Will he?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right in the way that she describes the attack that took place in Salisbury and the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the United Kingdom. We know that an individual has died as a result of contact with Novichok. I did raise the severity of this issue with President Trump. The United States reacted alongside us after that attack. It expelled more Russian intelligence officers and more Russian diplomats than any other country. I raised this among other issues that I would expect President Trump to raise with President Putin.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Two per cent. must not be the measure. Rather, it should be the capability to deliver lethal effect, shouldn’t it?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that, while focus is often on the numerical figure for spending, capability is important as well. That is, of course, where the United Kingdom scores not just in terms of the spending that we make, but in ensuring that we have the capability necessary and that that is available.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for her statements so far. Was she successful in her attempts to secure additional funding for defence from other NATO countries—some of which consistently underfund their contributions to NATO—considering the war against terror that we, as NATO members, are supposedly fighting together?
The Prime Minister
Countries that do not meet the 2% target at the moment are stepping up and increasing their spending. They went away with a very real sense that this is not just a long-term plan, but that there is an urgency in them doing this.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
Next year, more than 600 parliamentarians from across the NATO alliance will visit London. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a very important opportunity for Britain to show that we are absolutely a global nation and that our commitment to the alliance moving forward is absolutely at the heart of what we believe?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes a good and important point. He is absolutely right that this is an opportunity for us to show global Britain and to show our absolute commitment to NATO for the future.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Our NATO obligations are entwined with our other collective security arrangements. The Prime Minister has previously said:
“Thanks to the arrest warrant, more than 2,500 people wanted for crimes abroad are no longer roaming the streets of Britain…These include serious international criminals like murderers, paedophiles, human traffickers and terrorists.”
Can she tell us how she intends to defend us from these undesirables, as the White Paper does not commit to keeping us in the European arrest warrant system post Brexit?
Mr Speaker
“Parallel” says the hon. Lady optimistically from a sedentary position. We look to what might be called the geometrical dexterity of the Prime Minister to cope with the situation.
The Prime Minister
Although we did not discuss at the NATO summit the precise point that the hon. Lady raised, we did of course discuss our collective security. The hon. Lady can rest assured that in all our considerations on these matters we will be ensuring that we have the powers and tools necessary for our security.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
NATO seems to enjoy spending large amounts of money on new headquarters. Its swanky new main HQs were opened last year, and I think that the Prime Minister announced that two further HQs will be opened. How can we persuade our NATO allies to spend less on HQs, and more on frontline troops and offensive cyber-capability?
The Prime Minister
Although I used the term headquarters, the point is that these are about personnel who will be situated and who will be able to ensure that the capabilities are where they need to be in relation to NATO. For example, they are looking at possibilities around various parts of Europe to do this, but this is not just about a building; it is crucially about NATO’s capabilities and ensuring that it has the capabilities in the right place.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
We face not only chemical and cyber-attacks from Russia, but constant attempts to undermine our democratic and political processes. In the midst of last week, 12 Russian agents were indicted by the US Department of Justice for attempting to influence the US election. Can the Prime Minister say whether these matters were discussed at the NATO summit? Did she discuss them with President Trump or does she believe—like he said—that it was all part of a “rigged witch hunt” against Russia?
The Prime Minister
We have made very clear our concern at the way in which Russia has been seen in a number of countries to attempt to undermine the democratic processes in those countries. This matter was discussed not in specificity, but in the generality of the question of Russia’s interference and the malign state activity that is undertaken by Russia.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I welcome the NATO-Georgia commission declaration, which was made following the summit, about the ongoing dialogue with Georgia. As Georgia has reaffirmed its determination to achieve NATO membership, does the Prime Minister know whether any progress was made on timetabling the delivery of the membership action plan to Georgia?
The Prime Minister
We did discuss the potential accession of Georgia. The President of Georgia was there and was able to update us on the moves that Georgia has been making. The issue raised by my right hon. Friend will be an important part of the process. I am happy to write to her on the specific issue that she raised regarding the date.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Trump looks more comfortable straddling the world stage next to Putin than he did beside the Prime Minister. How can she justify sabotaging our secure economic relationship with our friends in the EU and craving favours of a man who prides himself on shredding the rules-based order?
The Prime Minister
That is not a question that can be answered, for the precise reason that the basis of the question is entirely wrong.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
With a looming and large predicted overspend on our defence budget, can my right hon. Friend assure me, the House and the country that she will maintain the NATO 2%—ideally 2.5%—which, as I understand it, will pay for the ongoing programme as laid out?
The Prime Minister
We are committed to maintaining the 2% of GDP spend on defence. Not just that, but we are one of the few countries that does the double-header, if you like, because the Wales summit committed not just to the 2% of GDP spend on defence but to 20% of that spending being on equipment, and we will continue to maintain that.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The post-war Labour Government played a pivotal role in the foundation of NATO because their Ministers understood the value and importance of collective security. As the Prime Minister said in her statement, article 5—its collective defence clause—has only ever been invoked once, in defence of the United States. Is she confident that the President of the United States is fully committed to article 5?
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier, what we had coming out of NATO was an absolute commitment to the unity and the collective action that is required in NATO. That was the unity around the table at the NATO summit, and it included President Trump and all the allies around the table.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is only right that we not only meet our NATO target but increase it in real terms and that it is about time that all NATO members committed to the 2% target?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend asks about all NATO members committing to the 2% target. Of course, they have committed to reach the 2% target—the challenge is making sure that they actually get there. As I said earlier, there was a very real sense around the table that there is a growing urgency in meeting the 2% target. Obviously, NATO will be working, as we will be working with it, to encourage others to do just that and to ensure that they do so.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it not clear from President Trump’s interview with The Sun newspaper in the margins of the NATO summit that he envisages a trade deal with the UK only if we sacrifice our European alliances? May I urge the Prime Minister not to pander to President Trump’s view, or to the Trumpian view of the hard-Brexiteer European Research Group, which she always seems happy to roll over for whenever it makes any demands of her?
The Prime Minister
We are looking to do a trade deal with the United States of America. We will discuss that trade deal with the United States of America. We recognise that there are certain issues that will have to be addressed within that trade deal. Issues around agricultural products have been raised in this House before. There are issues about the single standards model as well. I am happy to sit down and listen to and hear concerns from my colleagues. We did that on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and we continue to do it on other Bills.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
What was my right hon. Friend’s reaction to the bold new security partnership with the European Union to which she referred and to the possible cessation of the UK’s leadership of EU initiatives such as elements of the European Defence Agency, the battlegroups and Operation Atalanta?
The Prime Minister
We have so far had a constructive response to the proposals that we have put forward. Obviously, the specific sorts of operations and commitments that my hon. Friend mentions will need to be considered in the future as we look to see those areas where it does make sense for us to continue to be co-operating, and sometimes co-operating in a leading role.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Following my husband’s service in the armed forces, I had the real privilege of visiting our RAF forces based with NATO in Romania this year. We heard at the time that cyber-security is absolutely crucial and key, so will the Prime Minister ensure that this is given adequate priority moving forward?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to give that commitment to the hon. Lady. The President of Romania actually said to me during the summit how pleased they were with the work that the Royal Air Force has been doing there. We do recognise the importance of cyber- capabilities, and that will be a clear focus for the future.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Prime Minister needs to be far more robust on the issue of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which is a genuine threat to our key NATO partners in eastern and central Europe. Is she willing to impose sanctions on companies involved in this project?
The Prime Minister
I made a response earlier in relation to Nord Stream 2. There are, yes, considerable discussions that have to take place around the European Council table on this issue. A number of members of the European Union have concerns about this. It is a subject on which I think there will be those further discussions and appropriate action will be taken.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The American President seems to prefer unilateral action to multilateral action. He seems to want to be protectionist and inward-looking—to put America first, as he says—rather than to engage multilaterally. What implications does the Prime Minister think that approach has for the NATO alliance?
The Prime Minister
We sat around the table at NATO and, as I said, President Trump challenged those allies that are not meeting their 2% commitment. We agree—we have been raising that issue, and we continued to do so at the summit. Around the table, there was unity and recognition of the importance of transatlantic unity and of working through the NATO alliance.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should work with our allies in NATO to combat fake news and disinformation, especially after the incident in Salisbury?
The Prime Minister
That is very important. As I indicated in response to an Opposition Member, the whole question of attempts to interfere in democracy and of misinformation and propaganda was one of the elements we discussed at the summit, and it is one that we will ensure effort is put into.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The trouble is that Russian aggression continues unabated. Only last week, the Greek Government found that four Russian diplomats had been bribing officials in Greece to try to foment opposition to the deal with Macedonia—or North Macedonia. We wholeheartedly support that deal going forward. Do we not absolutely have to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Greek Government and consider further measures against the Russians—and for that matter, should we not stand alongside the Danish Government over Nord Stream 2?
The Prime Minister
I did indeed commend the Greek Prime Minister on the action that Greece has taken. As the hon. Gentleman says, we are very clear that we think an historic agreement has been reached between the Governments in Skopje and Athens. Obviously, processes need to be gone through in both countries. We hope those have a successful conclusion.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
The UK is acknowledged to be at the forefront of defence modernisation. Is my right hon. Friend confident that other NATO members are ready to modernise, too?
The Prime Minister
We are certainly putting significant effort into modernisation, in recognising the need for new capabilities and the modernisation of NATO. I think it is fair to say that we are one of the countries at the forefront of that modernisation, but we are ensuring that other allies around the table recognise its importance and come along with it, too.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Prime Minister rightly said that NATO and the EU are the dual cornerstones of our security. Why, then, does she keep dancing to the tune of the European Research Group? Does she see that by capitulating to its proposals on the customs and trade Bills, she is accepting that the Chequers deal is dead in the water?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong in his reference to the agreement that was reached at Chequers. I would not have gone through all the work I did to ensure we reached that agreement only to see it changed in some way through these Bills. They do not change the Chequers agreement, and the Minister will make that clear from the Dispatch Box later today.
Mr Speaker
I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), but I think he is geographically more challenged than his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who is sitting next to him.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The most visible sign of our commitment to NATO’s eastern partners is the deployment of our troops in the Baltic states. Were the Baltic states reassured at the summit that the United Kingdom and all other NATO countries view an attack on one as an attack on all?
The Prime Minister
I think the Baltic states have taken considerable reassurance from the approach of the allies around the NATO table. Obviously, we are very pleased to be playing a leading role in the enhanced forward presence in Estonia, which is an important commitment that we have going into the future. I know that not just the Estonians but the Lithuanians and the Latvians are very clear about the support that NATO is showing them.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Respecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity is about more than Crimea; we cannot forget about the illegally occupied east of Ukraine. Can the Prime Minister tell me what the support she talks of actually looks like and how it materialises on the ground in Ukraine? Exactly what is the Government’s policy on Nord Stream 2? Despite what she said, I cannot tell.
The Prime Minister
We have obviously been supporting the Ukrainian Government in a number of ways, one of which is in the reforms that we believe are necessary there, as well as supporting their capability to deal with what has happened in parts of the country. As I have said, we will continue to discuss Nord Stream 2 with allies.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
My constituents voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU because they believe that, as a sovereign country, we can make our own policies in the world. Can the Prime Minister explain how we can have a security partnership with NATO in the EU after we have left the EU?
The Prime Minister
We will indeed be able to have that independent policy, but I think it is important, because of the capabilities that we share with European Union countries on various security issues, that in future we do have a partnership that enables us to maintain operational capability. Of course, the bedrock of European security is NATO. We are a leading country within NATO, and we will continue to be so.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
On the margins of the NATO summit, what did the Prime Minister say to Donald Trump when he advised her to sue the European Union?
The Prime Minister
First, that comment was not actually made at the NATO summit. Secondly, the hon. Lady might have seen that we have not sued the European Union; what we are doing is going into negotiations.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
The Prime Minister has spoken about the impressive advances in cyber-capability being made across the alliance. How is thinking developing over how the principles of collective security enshrined in article 5 would be applied in the event of a cyber-attack, because I know that work on that has been ongoing within NATO for some time?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. It is fair to say that we have been pressing for reform of NATO for some time, as has the United States, recognising these issues. NATO does recognise the issue and it is still working on that question. It is important that we have made our offensive cyber-capabilities available to the alliance. One or two other countries are now doing that as well, and I look forward to seeing others do the same.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Brussels declaration highlighted how arms control should
“continue to make an essential contribution to achieving the Alliance’s security objectives”.
Can the Prime Minister confirm what steps the Government are taking on that, particularly with regard to small arms, which can be so devastating?
The Prime Minister
We have one of the most robust and rigorous arms export regimes in the world. The hon. Gentleman mentions small arms, and some work on that is being led by the French. It is something that we have looked at previously, to try to ensure that firearms are not transported for criminal purposes, particularly across Europe. We continue to work on that.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I am very pleased to hear that the Prime Minister has agreed that we will be improving the readiness of our forces through the NATO readiness initiative. Does she agree that the Royal Marines, such as 40 Commando in my constituency, exemplify the essential expertise and modern approach that we can offer?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to commend the Royal Marines based in my hon. Friend’s constituency. They do indeed provide that great example of readiness, as do other armed forces here in the United Kingdom, and I am pleased that we are able to contribute to the NATO readiness initiative.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
About these issues, the Prime Minister has said that
“we must engage from a position of unity and strength.”
Who does she think has done most to put that unity at risk: Donald Trump, who calls our friends foes, or the hard Brexiteers who have now left her Cabinet? Who, when it comes to British diplomacy, has taken incompetence to new heights?
The Prime Minister
Around the NATO table we are all working together to ensure the security of Europe, and indeed the wider security, because the security of Europe has an impact beyond its borders. Indeed, NATO is working beyond the borders of Europe, as we see with the Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan. I am pleased that, as we recently announced, we are not only continuing to contribute to that mission, but enhancing our contribution.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
My right hon. Friend rightly said today that we face a profound challenge to the entire rules-based international order. Does she agree that, in deploying troops to the Baltic to support our allies there and in Scandinavia, we are defending that rules-based order and not, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, simply escalating tensions?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree. It is important that we show that commitment to the Baltic states and that we also show that commitment with, for example, the Joint Expeditionary Force that we have recently established with some of the Nordic countries. Those are important symbols of our defence of the values that we share in Europe.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Prime Minister accept that without the tough words from President Trump before and during the NATO summit, many of those who have been freeloading on the US and the UK would not have made the 2% commitment to defence spending? More importantly, what monitoring will there be to ensure that they honour those promises?
The Prime Minister
Of course, they made the commitment in Wales. The question is meeting it, and I think that the President’s intervention has made a difference and that NATO itself will ensure that it monitors that commitment and looks at the timetables to which those allies will work to meet it.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Does the Prime Minister support Nord Stream 2?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, we recognise that there are real concerns about Nord Stream 2. There are concerns about its impact on Ukraine, and we will discuss the matter further with our allies.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The fact remains that President Trump is a NATO-sceptic who really responds only to individual strongmen around the world. Does the Prime Minister agree that NATO’s strength is many countries coming together and putting their collective security in the single organisation of NATO? Did she explain to Donald Trump where that strength comes from?
The Prime Minister
It was very clear around the NATO summit table—it was a point that I and others made—that our unity and collective strength have made NATO the bedrock of European security over the years.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
A strong Royal Navy is vital to countering Russian aggression in the north Atlantic and on our northern flank. What discussions did the Prime Minister have at the NATO summit about preserving our amphibious capabilities as part of that NATO effort, especially protecting HMS Albion, HMS Bulwark and the Royal Marines?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, discussions take place about our particular capabilities and how we ensure that we protect them. We have made a significant commitment to our Royal Navy in terms of the equipment that we are providing. The fact that we have two new aircraft carriers and the new frigates that will come forward shows that we have made a very real commitment to our Royal Navy for the future.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The splendid formations of Typhoons and Tornadoes flying over London last week surely exemplify the fruits of previous co-operation with European countries. The Prime Minister used the interesting phrase, “where it is right to do so in the future”. Does that mean that it is conceivable that there might not be such co-operation in future?
The Prime Minister
We have said that we will have an independent foreign and defence policy and that there will be occasions when we co-operate with the European Union on those matters, just as there are occasions when we co-operate on a bilateral basis with individual countries in Europe—for example, the very good co-operation that we have with France on defence matters and the co-operation that we now have with some of the Nordic states on the Joint Expeditionary Force. We will ensure that we do what is in our national interests and the interests of maintaining European security.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Prime Minister helpfully outlined just how disregarding Russia is of international rules and order, but having engaged with our NATO allies, does she believe that military confrontation with Russia is more likely, less likely or the same?
The Prime Minister
We have seen that malign state activity from Russia across a whole range of activities and capabilities. What is important for us sitting around that table and in NATO is ensuring that we have the capabilities to deal with that threat in whatever form it comes.
Trade Policy
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
In October last year, my Department published a White Paper, “Preparing for our Future UK Trade Policy”, in which we set out the Government’s commitment to transparency and inclusiveness in our future trading arrangements. The paper also set out our intention to boost our trade relationships with old friends and new allies, expanding access to markets across the globe. Today, I can set out the role of Parliament, the devolved Administrations, public, business and civil society, and how the Government intend to engage with those groups as we embark on our new international trade agreements to benefit the whole UK and ensure we meet our commitments to an inclusive and transparent trade policy.
Scrutiny of our future trade arrangements is vital as we take powers back from the EU into UK law and begin negotiating our own new free trade agreements. I would like, at this stage, to make a distinction between our free trade agreements with new partners, to which this statement relates, and continuity trade agreements—those being legislated for in the Trade Bill tomorrow and to which the customs Bill powers being debated today will also apply. With that distinction in mind, for our new FTAs we will now put in place a structured approach to engagement to provide clarity on how stakeholders can feed into this vital work that will help to shape the trading future of our country.
To ensure that our new agreements and future trade policy work for the whole UK, it is vital that Parliament, the devolved Administrations, local government, business, trade unions, civil society and the public from every part of the UK have the opportunity to engage and contribute from the outset of the process. On Parliament specifically, the Government are committed to providing Parliament with the ability to inform and scrutinise new trade agreements in a timely and appropriate manner. I want to set out how this will be achieved.
We will ensure that parliamentarians are given the opportunity to consider the level of ambition of the Government’s approach to negotiations and the potential implications of any agreements. We will explore the best process to do that, but in the first instance it could take the form of a general debate. In addition, the Government will keep both Houses updated on the progress of negotiations through statements and updates to the International Trade Committee as the negotiations progress. This will include timely analysis at appropriate points to support decision making. Of course, as in any negotiation, a certain level of confidentiality will be necessary to help ensure the best outcome for the UK, and the updates will be given with that in mind.
At the end of a negotiation, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 will continue to apply as it does to all treaties that are subject to ratification. Under the Act, the Government will lay before Parliament any treaty they intend to ratify, alongside an explanatory memorandum which will summarise the content of each trade agreement. Consistent with best practice, with any new international trade partners the Government will also, at the appropriate time, publish an impact assessment. To implement a new trade agreement with a new partner, the Government will bring forward a bespoke piece of primary legislation when required for each new future trade agreement that requires changes to legislation and where there are no existing powers. Parliament will therefore have the opportunity to scrutinise the new legislation in the normal way. I believe that this process will strengthen Parliament’s ability to shape and scrutinise the Government’s ambitious trade policy agenda and our new free trade agreements with partners around the world.
To develop and deliver a UK trade policy that benefits business, workers and consumers across the whole UK, we need to reflect the needs and individual circumstances of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We will work closely with the devolved Administrations on an ongoing basis to deliver an approach that works for the whole UK. As part of this, we are conducting a series of collaborative policy roundtables with devolved Administrations and key stakeholders in all parts of the country, which will draw on their knowledge and expertise, recognising their role in helping to deliver the objectives of our trade policy and future negotiations. We will ensure that the devolved Administrations are able to inform the Government’s approach to negotiations throughout the consultation period and, of course, with subsequent engagement throughout the entire negotiation process. We will also engage more widely in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, holding meetings with a wide range of stakeholder groups. Let us not forget the English regions, whose involvement in this process is also of vital importance and who, from the north-east to the south-west, make a huge contribution to our trading performance. They, too, will be fully involved.
As we prepare to begin negotiating future trade agreements once we leave the EU, we will also want groups and any individuals with an interest to have their say and inform our approach to negotiations. Our White Paper asked how the Government should seek views from the public, business, trade unions and civil society. We were grateful to receive thousands of responses. The responses made clear the need to move to a more formalised engagement structure, so that stakeholders are clearer on when and how they can offer input and how their information will be used. It is therefore important that we ensure that the public, and wider stakeholders, have access to this process online to make sure that we reach the widest possible range of people, in terms of both diversity and geography. I will write to all Members with website and address details so that we can fully inform and involve our constituents.
My Department will also convene a strategic trade advisory group to bring expert external insight to trade policy making and to advise Ministers. We are inviting expressions of interest in membership and will appoint 14 members, based on their technical expertise, to take seats on the group. We will ensure that the group represents the varied interests of business, workers, consumers and non-governmental organisations in all parts of the UK. More details can be found on the Department for International Trade gov.uk pages.
I have said that all stakeholders and members of the public must be able to inform the Government’s approach, and that is why we will launch public consultations for each potential new trade agreement. If we are to learn the lessons from agreements such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, we need to ensure that people are able to express their views and feel that they have been taken into account. I want people to feel invested in this process and that the benefits of free trade are shared across the length and breadth of the UK. The Government’s consultations will therefore last for 14 weeks, giving everyone the opportunity to share their objectives and any concerns about potential new agreements. I will update the House on potential agreements that will be subject to consultation in the coming days. My ministerial colleagues and I will continue to meet representatives from business and civil society and my officials will continue to welcome technical policy discussions with a broad range of experts. We will also hold a range of outreach events to engage with stakeholders across the whole United Kingdom.
The views gathered through the Government’s consultation and engagement will ensure an informed and well evidenced approach to each of our trade negotiations. I can confirm that before entering formal negotiations, we intend to publish an “Outline Approach” to each negotiation, setting out the high-level objectives and scope of that negotiation. This document will be accompanied by a scoping assessment at that point.
As I have said many times, the decision to leave the European Union was not a decision to retreat from the world. In fact, we need to embrace it—to trade more, not less, and to fight protectionism and break down the barriers to trade wherever we find them. As agreed at the European Council meeting in March, the UK will be able to begin to negotiate new trade agreements from April 2019. It is therefore right that we set out how we intend to gather views from across the country now to inform the Government’s approach to new trade negotiations before those talks begin and as they progress to conclusion.
As we decide our own trade policy for the first time in over 40 years, I am sure that Members of the House will agree that it is only right that we all get a say. I am confident that our proposals will deliver the scrutiny and transparency that the UK public, including Parliament, expect and deserve, and I commend this statement to the House.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement. I have to say, when he said that he wanted to boost his relationships with old friends and new allies, I did wonder for a moment whether he was talking about the previous Foreign Secretary and the current Prime Minister, but it seemed not.
The Trade Bill completed its Committee stage more than six months ago. Since then, the Government have been too scared to bring it back for fear of what their Back Benchers might do to it, but tomorrow, this House will debate Report stage and Third Reading of the Trade Bill, so it was with a certain amount of disbelief that I saw that today of all days, the Secretary of State would be making a statement on “Delivering a transparent and inclusive UK trade policy”. I thought to myself, “This man’s having a laugh.” He is.
For months, since the first publication of this flawed piece of legislation last October, we have been saying that it fails to do what the Government led us to believe it would in the Gracious Speech at the state opening of Parliament—namely, to set out the legislative framework to deliver a transparent and inclusive UK trade policy. Business has been saying it; unions have been saying it; civil society has been saying it. Madam Deputy Speaker, did you ever hear of such a coalition? The International Chamber of Commerce, the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the EEF, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses all joined forces with the TUC, Unite the union, the Trade Justice Movement and even the Consumers’ Association, which publishes Which?, to tell the Government they needed to sort this out.
We tabled a series of amendments in Committee. The Government refused every one. So why this protestation, this deathbed Damascene conversion by the Secretary of State? It is a welcome confession, but as drafted the Bill does not provide what so many on the Government Benches told us was the point of leaving the EU. It does not give control over laws to this sovereign Parliament; it gives them to Ministers. What today in his statement has the Secretary of State done to change this? The words are warm. The detail is far from clear. Will he be accepting new clause 3 tomorrow? It sets out a proper scrutiny procedure for trade agreements. We tabled that amendment in Committee only to see it scorned. We welcome his statement that the Government will be bringing forward a proper consultation process in advance of future trade agreements. Does this mean he will be accepting our amendment 18 on consultation or our new clause 4 on respecting the rights of the devolved Administrations? The true penitent must not merely confess his sins; the true penitent must amend his ways. There is little in this statement that shows the Government are prepared to do so.
Modern trade agreements are so complex and extensive that they reach into nearly all aspects of government and policy, but they are not like domestic legislation, which can be repealed when it is no longer technically suitable or politically acceptable. Instead, they place legally binding obligations on Governments in perpetuity that cannot be simply amended or repealed yet those obligations can be agreed behind closed doors and in total secrecy by the Government’s negotiators alone. That is why it is incumbent upon Members of this House to ensure a rigorous and robust scrutiny framework for trade agreements.
Until now, the Government have rejected every single one of our amendments. It is welcome that, however late in the day, they have tabled amendments addressing at least some issues before tomorrow’s Third Reading, but they do not go far enough. They have now agreed with Labour that regulations should not be implemented under the negative procedure. They have also agreed with Labour that there could be substantive variation in the roll-over agreements compared with the corresponding EU agreements and have brought forward amendments that will require the Government to report on any such change. But of course as one hand gives, the other hand takes away, as they have also tabled an amendment that would allow them to ignore this, should they so choose. Reporting on a change is not the same as giving Parliament the power to amend it. I trust that, given the Secretary of State’s acknowledgement today of the Bill’s failings, he will support those amendments that seek to rectify the shortcomings tomorrow.
Finally, why are we having this statement today? It could and should have been delivered as part of the debate on the Bill tomorrow. Indeed, any concessions could have been brought forward as amendments at any stage since it had its Second Reading last November. Today’s statement can only have been brought forward in a bid to limit time for this afternoon’s critical debate on the Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Bill and to stave off any opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to expose the ludicrous position this Government have now got themselves into by saying they will accept European Research Group amendments that directly contradict the Chequers agreement.
A group of Ministers and Back-Bench Members within and outside the Cabinet now appear to be deliberately steering the Brexit negotiations on to the rocks of a no deal, with all the damaging consequences for jobs and our economy of moving disruptively on to World Trade Organisation rules. I believe the Secretary of State is one such. The warm words and platitudes of this statement do not mask the cynical political game he is playing and make a mockery of the role of this House in undertaking proper and rigorous debate of some of the most important legislation to come before us in 50 years.
Dr Fox
As no questions were actually raised in the hon. Gentleman’s response to my statement, I am tempted simply to sit down again.
One of the reasons we give advance notice to Front Benchers is to try to ensure that they are at least be talking about the same issue as we are. However, I am afraid the shadow Secretary of State does not seem to understand that the Trade Bill, which we will debate tomorrow, specifically does not involve future free trade agreements; it merely involves continuity agreements. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that point, I am not sure what else in the Bill he will understand.
Today’s statement related to new free trade agreements. I gave the House a commitment that I would set out, before the summer recess, what our proposals would be, in the context of transparency and inclusivity, when it came to negotiating those new free trade agreements. The fact that we are making statements during the negotiations, and giving updates to the International Trade Committee, shows that we have acted in good faith. I am afraid that this afternoon we have simply had bluster and bunkum instead of reason and rationality, and if anyone was making a mockery of anything, it was a mockery of Front-Bench duties.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to the House that, as the statement made clear, this is about how Parliament, the devolved Administrations and the wider public will be engaged in the process of forming free trade agreements with new partners, and scrutinising those trade agreements. In other words, this is a relatively narrow canvas to which colleagues can fit their questions. The Chair will not entertain long speeches about anything to do with Brexit. I am sure that Members will find a way of asking the questions that they wish to ask, while keeping within the narrow canvas that I have just described.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I rather share the suspicion of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) that the only reason this non-urgent statement was made today was to reduce the already inadequate time that we will have in which to debate the highly important Bill that follows, which is likely to be squeezed into four hours for speeches and Divisions—although the hon. Gentleman then filibustered. I shall try to avoid contributing to that filibuster.
As you have given your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not ask the full question that I was going to ask about the rumours that the Government will adopt, this afternoon, amendments that are directly inconsistent with the White Paper of a week ago, including amendments tabled by my hon. Friends. For instance, new clause 36 contradicts paragraph 17(a) of the White Paper, on page 17. Are any statements by the Government on its trade policy in future to be relied on for more than a week or two at the moment, and is it not rather premature for the Secretary of State to come here and explain exactly how we may eventually be contemplating new trade agreements of our own, which will take many, many years to achieve?
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it, and indeed for the tone that he adopted. I am particularly grateful for what he said about enabling Parliament to scrutinise future trade deals in a timely fashion. However, it should be ensured that we have enough information to be able to scrutinise them properly.
I will not be as cynical as others, but I find it slightly odd that an urgent statement has been made about a nine-month-old document. Nevertheless, what was said was welcome, especially in relation to liaison with businesses, workers and non-governmental organisations, particularly those concerned with trade justice. I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that there will be sufficient sight and enough detail of future proposals for them to do their work as well.
I also welcome what the Secretary of State said about liaison with devolved institutions. However, it is not enough simply to have liaison, discussion and consultation if there are real implications that consent may be required. A role in setting the negotiating mandate may be necessary. Actively seeking consent throughout the process towards ratification is a process that I would have expected the Secretary of State to welcome, and I hope he will look at our new clauses 20 to 24 tomorrow in that regard.
But most importantly, I hope the Secretary of State takes on board when he is liaising—and I take him at his word that this will happen—the deep concern in society, in campaign groups and throughout all sorts of organisations about the implications of trade deals in the future for public safety, good hygiene and the environment, and understands that we never again, as he mentioned in his statement, want to get into a position such as we were with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, where, after a short period of time, there was mass opposition to a bad treaty not discussed with the public in advance.
The Secretary of State talks about future trade deals, and I understand why he is making that distinction, but if we have a trade deal that is being rolled over but requires some tweaks or changes that are subsequently extended beyond five years, that may look very similar to a new trade deal. I hope he will look actively at having the same scrutiny of and consultation on those arrangements as he does simply for deals in the future.
Dr Fox
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for a response with some substance. He is quite right to say that the length of time available is important; it is why we have chosen a consultation period of 14 weeks—the EU, for example, has 12, and other countries have less than that—and it is important that we allow that to happen. He is also right that with TTIP many of the public felt they had not been involved from the beginning of the process; there was no equivalent process to the one we are setting out today for the pre-negotiation phase so that the public could set out their ambitions and objectives for any trade agreement.
On future agreements, I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at what this House has already agreed on CETA: chapters 23 and 24 specifically place restrictions on Governments from watering down in any way their labour or environmental laws for the promotion of trade. We have already agreed that that will be the basis of our future trade agreement with Canada, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to judge the Government on what we do, not on what is said.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
It will be brave man who does not acknowledge your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall stick faithfully to them.
First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the energy with which he is preparing the ground for these fiendishly complicated arrangements. May I endorse very strongly what he said about the TTIP process and the absolute need for people to understand clearly what is and is not involved in these questions and negotiations? Will he particularly do much more with our febrile and irresponsible press to convince them that these trade arrangements are not all about toxic chickens?
Dr Fox
My right hon. Friend is right: it is important that we explain what is involved. It is also important to genuinely consult, as he says. That is why the Government in their pre-negotiation phase are doing what has never been done to this extent before. Pascal Lamy, the former director-general of the World Trade Organisation, said we are leaving a period in trade which was about the protection of producers and entering one about the precaution of consumers. Our consumers are very much more interested in trade policy today than they have ever been, and therefore they will expect, and we have a duty to provide, the appropriate consultation for them.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
This statement is about consultations in advance of future trading arrangements, so will the Secretary of State assure the House that he at no time consulted members of the Conservative European Research Group on their four wrecking amendments wrecking the Chequers arrangement before they were tabled?
Dr Fox
Madam Deputy Speaker, of all Members of the House I know what it is like to invoke your wrath, so I will not stray into that territory about what may happen on legislation later today. All I can say is that the Government gave a commitment that before the recess we would come to the House with our proposals for consultation on and scrutiny of new free trade agreements, and that is exactly what we have done.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I strongly support the Government’s line that where we have an existing trade agreement through the EU, we are as entitled to take that over for us as it is for the residual EU. I trust my right hon. Friend will just crack on with that and have it ready by March 2019 in case we leave then, while having a different process for a new trade deal, which I am sure the public will welcome.
Dr Fox
We have always made it clear, as I did at the beginning of my statement, that there is a distinction between the continuity agreements covered in the Trade Bill that we will debate tomorrow and new free trade agreements, which we promised we would set out the scrutiny procedure for, and that is what has happened today. I know that it sometimes comes as a shock to the House when a Government do exactly as they said they would do in exactly the timescale allocated, but I am afraid that that is exactly what has happened today.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Secretary of State said in his statement:
“We will ensure that parliamentarians are given the opportunity to consider the level of ambition of the Government’s approach to negotiations and the potential implications of any agreements.”
Will he therefore confirm that the “potential implications” of, say, a US deal might include chlorinated chicken—toxic or otherwise—hormone-fed beef or GMO food?
Dr Fox
The whole point of the negotiation phase, which is one of five phases of a free trade agreement, is that the public set out what they believe the level of ambition should be. Those who want to set restrictions on what they think the Government’s mandate in the negotiation should be will be free to express themselves during that period. That is exactly why we are putting this forward, because the worst thing would be to go into a negotiation when the public felt that their views had not been taken into account in any way. As I have said, this is not just about the Government being philanthropic in the trade space; it is also about our self-interest, because it makes the job much easier for the Government and for Parliament if the public feel that they have genuinely been consulted. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) said, one of the problems with the TTIP process was that the public felt that they had been ignored and that the negotiation had happened from start to finish away from public scrutiny. We have to try to avoid that happening in future if we are to take advantage of the freedom that new free trade agreements will give to the country.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on outlining the broad parameters of how future trade policy and consultation will work. I think he is on exactly the right lines, particularly with the commitment to primary legislation for each individual trade deal. Will he tell us a bit more about the consultative roundtables that he has described? One of the things we will discover is that politicians and producer interests will quickly try to get to the front of them, so how will he ensure that consumers, consumer companies and consumer groups will have a proper voice in that consultation?
Dr Fox
As I mentioned earlier, one of the key elements will be the setting up of the strategic trade advisory group. We will ensure that we have representatives across that, including small and medium-sized enterprises, consumer representatives, development organisations and non-governmental organisations. I go back to the point that I made earlier: it is absolutely essential that people feel they have been genuinely consulted throughout the process; otherwise, they will say that they do not accept the agreement because there has not been sufficient transparency throughout the process.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I completely agree with the Secretary of State on two things. First, I agree that protectionism is on the rise, which is bad for us in this country. Secondly, I am delighted that he is sticking with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, because I wrote those clauses. I want to ask a specific question about deals that we do with new countries. Will every single one of them include human rights clauses?
Dr Fox
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave earlier, which was that the Government should be judged on what they are doing. In terms of the agreements we are now looking at and will be debating tomorrow, they all include those. I find it difficult to imagine that, when we have a widespread consultation, that will not be a strong ask of the Government.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
But any scrutiny of and consultation on manufactures and food will be limited to tariff and quota, because we will continue to be bound by the acquis, won’t we?
Dr Fox
I am not sure that that question was entirely within the scope of the statement, Madam Deputy Speaker. Even if we are looking purely at goods issues, I think that the ability of the United Kingdom to abolish or reduce to zero tariffs with the United States on cars, for example, would have been something that President Trump would have welcomed last week.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
If Scotland is an equal part of the United Kingdom, why can it not have a seat at the table when we are negotiating the free trade agreements?
Dr Fox
Back when we signed the memorandum of understanding, we made it clear that if there are areas where any of the devolved Administrations might have specific interests, that may allow us to have a seat at an international negotiation. Of course, that would involve having to further the Government’s position because, remembering that trade is still a reserved matter, we could not go into negotiations with someone sitting on the British side of the table who took a different view from the Government’s broader objective for the whole United Kingdom.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My old mum told me that I should not cherry-pick rules. When we try to make free trade agreements with America, for example, will the Secretary of State confirm that, following the Chequers agreement last week, we will have to accept the common rulebook in its entirety and that nothing in those deals can deviate from it?
Dr Fox
If that is the agreement that we come to with the European Union, that would be the case, and my hon. Friend is right that there would as a result be some restrictions in the offers that we could make in a free trade agreement—it is pointless to state otherwise. However, there would still be considerable freedom on agricultural tariffs, for example, and on quotas, and many of things that many of the countries with whom we will be negotiating want would still be entirely within our gift.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly the commitment to devolved region engagement. However, will he commit to embed and formalise that engagement in this policy, including in relation to the negotiating mandate?
Dr Fox
I hope that I have set out the broad direction of travel on that, and we will now be negotiating and holding discussions with and informing the devolved Administrations to see how we can make that work in practice. I say to the hon. Lady in all candour that if trade is to be a reserved issue for the whole UK, it must become self-evident that its benefits are actually for the whole UK.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
For the avoidance of any doubt, will the Secretary of State confirm that none of these proposed arrangements would in any way be adversely affected if we left the EU without a deal and found ourselves operating on WTO terms?
Dr Fox
The arrangements that I have set out today must stand alone and have to apply whatever final agreement we come to with the European Union. They are about the scrutiny of our future trade agreements. There are no pre-conditions attached to how we have devised the mechanism itself.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Appreciating that the scope of this question is about our future trade agreements, a business from my constituency said to me:
“We already work with and export to places like the US, Australia and South Africa, and I fail to see how leaving the single market and the customs union would enhance our ability to do any more of this.”
Will the Secretary of State therefore please clarify how that business can contribute to the consultation to ensure that it can actually make something of this new free trade world?
Dr Fox
The whole point of free trade agreements is to gain market access where we do not have it today for the benefit of our businesses that want to export. I hope that businesses will outline their level of ambition as each trade agreement is set out so that the Government understand just what they think they could do if markets were more open than they are today.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. What reassurance is he able to offer those who say that the inclusion of agri-food in the common rulebook is a sop to farmers in southern Europe and a snub to potential partners in places such as north Africa and Latin America?
Dr Fox
One of the most recent comments I have read is that this would stop Britain being able to import food of a standard that we do not currently find acceptable. I have said at the Dispatch Box many times that the Government have no interest whatsoever in reducing the quality of the food that we have in the United Kingdom nor the standards by which it is produced. In any case, if we reduced our standards, that would undermine the reputation of the goods that we sell abroad. It is because of our high standards that, according to Barclays, 57% of Chinese consumers, for example, are willing to pay more for goods made or produced in the UK.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The Secretary of State has committed to ensuring that the devolved Administrations are able to inform the Government’s approach to negotiations, but will he clarify what role they will have in the negotiations themselves and whether their consent will be sought before any trade agreement is ratified?
Dr Fox
I would imagine that, in line with other agreements, we would seek legislative consent from the devolved Administrations where there were elements in which they were required to apply parts of those negotiations. I would hope that, because I believe our interests are one and the same, we would want to work together to ensure that what we get for UK consumers, UK producers and UK exporters are of maximum benefit.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
In my experience of public consultations, it is often the case that the people responding are not particularly well informed of the status quo, so will my right hon. Friend ensure that, as we move forward into this new way of working, we inform the public both of the situation as it currently is and of how it would be improved with the free trade agreements that are to be signed?
Dr Fox
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, as it is perhaps something I should have included in my statement. He is entirely right that, again to go back to the TTIP example, the public did not feel they were suitably informed. For each of the potential trade agreements, we will make available to the public a summary of what a free trade agreement actually is, the chapters that it constitutes, the specific nature of the country in question in terms of its market and what the opportunities will be. The more information we are able to give to all those stakeholders who will want to be part of the consultation, the better the collective decision we are likely to reach.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
On that note, bringing people with us by clearly outlining, explaining and engaging with everybody about what is proposed in the new free trade world is essential, and I welcome my right hon. Friend’s approach today. This is absolutely the right way to go. Will he confirm that these consultations will be straightforward so that my constituents can get involved in this new free trade world?
Dr Fox
We have had a look at what other countries have done, particularly in their online content, and how well it has gone down with those who have been involved in consultation processes. For that reason, I think it is very important that we have an online consultation that is fairly standardised so that the public know what is being asked of them from the information they are given.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States be more likely or less likely as a result of the White Paper?
Dr Fox
It will be dependent on what both sides are willing to concede and on the level of ambition that both sides have. Following my discussions, not least with the President of the United States last week, I am very optimistic that such an agreement is well within the reach of both parties.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and congratulate him on the approach he is taking. When will he be able to set out the countries he is hoping to enter into negotiations with?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
And the prize for patience and perseverance goes to Tom Pursglove.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the US President last week. Did the President indicate the US’s desire to do a free trade deal with the United Kingdom? If so, how will this consultation help to directly affect and influence that process?
Dr Fox
In line with his patience, I take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for all the work he did as my Parliamentary Private Secretary. He was one of the best PPSs it has been my pleasure to come across in my 26 years in the House of Commons.
Yes, the United States did show it has an appetite for a free trade deal, and what I think will be of interest to it is our willingness to be extraordinarily transparent and to give Parliament the scrutiny powers that most other countries take for granted.
Ministerial Code
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I now call Pete Wishart to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. The hon. Gentleman has three minutes in which to make his application.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I rise to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter for urgent consideration, namely section 9.5 of the ministerial code.
I am grateful to you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is my third attempt to secure a Standing Order No. 24 debate. So far the result has been zero out of two, but I am hoping for better fortune with this application.
Last Thursday’s release of the Department for Exiting the European Union’s White Paper “The future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union” was nothing less than a farce. Chaotic scenes of Members of Parliament throwing White Papers across the Chamber like frisbees did nothing for the reputation of this House or that of the document itself. At the point when the Secretary of State rose to give his statement neither our office, nor the Labour Whips Office, had received a copy of it. Section 9.5 of the ministerial code states:
“A copy of the text of an oral statement should usually be shown to the Opposition shortly before it is made. For this purpose, 15 copies of the statement and associated documents should be sent to the Chief Whip’s Office at least 45 minutes before the statement is to be made. At the same time, a copy of the final text of an oral statement should in all cases be sent in advance to the Speaker.”
I do not know whether Mr Speaker did receive a copy of the final text of the statement, but what I do know is that that same White Paper had been given to members of the press at 9 o’clock that morning, compounding the total disrespect to this House.
This was an important statement and an even more important document. The House has been waiting for two years for some kind of negotiating position from Her Majesty’s Government. Equally, the EU has been waiting two years, and people from across these isles had been waiting to hear what the Government were going to propose. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Scotland did not vote for this Brexit. We did not endorse it and we want nothing whatsoever to do with it. Shambles and crises are occurring right across Whitehall—these crises seem to be developing by the hour.
May I also take this opportunity to thank Mr Speaker for suspending that chaotic session to ensure that Members had at least a few minutes to skim some of the pages of the White Paper before attempting to hold the Secretary of State to account? What the public must have made of those proceedings is anyone’s guess, but it was not the first time that the Department for Exiting the European Union had done this. One instance might have been an accident, but we are starting to see a troubling trend from this Department and others. This is just about the worst possible example of a breach of the ministerial code, and the matter requires more attention from the House. I humbly request an emergency debate to get the answers that the House and the country need.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has asked leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely section 9.5 of the ministerial code. I have listened carefully to the application, which the hon. Gentleman made in his usual excellent, rhetorical manner. I have to tell him that I am not persuaded that this matter is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. I thank him for his usual excellent and entertaining rhetoric.
Point of Order
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Whitworth Park School in my constituency is going through a period of considerable turmoil. The interim head, David Stone, and one of his deputies, Amy Aspland, have been pressurising teachers, pupils and parents not to contact their Member of Parliament and interrogating them about the content of the conversations if they have done so. Even prisoners are allowed to have confidential communications with their constituency MP. Furthermore, and misleadingly, people have been accused of “radicalisation”, which is the language the Government use in respect of preventing extremist terrorism. I would be very grateful for your guidance on what I can do to serve my constituents properly. Do you agree with me that at all times British citizens have the right to contact their Member of Parliament and, indeed, that that is essential for the health of our democracy?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I do agree with the hon. Lady—of course I do—and I am sure that every Member of this House will agree with her. I thank her for giving me notice that she wished to raise this matter. There is no doubt whatsoever that everyone who lives in all our constituencies should feel able to raise matters with their elected representatives in order that they can be brought up in Parliament, and that our constituents should be able to do so in every case, without fear of reprisal. It is clearly wrong of anyone, let alone public sector employees, to make any attempt to intimidate our constituents in order to prevent them from contacting us. If the hon. Lady believes, either now or at some future time, that an actual contempt or breach of privilege has been committed, her remedy is to write to Mr Speaker to set out the facts. I am quite sure that Mr Speaker will consider the matter with the gravity that it requires. Meanwhile, I am sure that the hon. Lady will use the range of parliamentary opportunities open to her, which she knows very well, to represent the views of her constituents with her customary vigour.
Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill
Monday 16th July 2018
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 View all Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 16 July 2018 - (16 Jul 2018)
21:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 289 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:29 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 36 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 305 / Noes: 302 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 283 / Noes: 317 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 303 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 318 / Noes: 285 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—EU VAT area and pre-commencement requirements—
“(1) It shall be a negotiating objective of Her Majesty’s Government in negotiations on the matters specified in subsection (2) to maintain the United Kingdom’s participation in the EU VAT Area under the arrangements set out through the Union Customs Code and its delegated and implementing legislation.
(2) Those matters are—
(a) the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, and
(b) a permanent agreement with the European Union for a period subsequent to the transitional period after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay a report before the House of Commons in accordance with either subsection (4) or subsection (5).
(4) A report under this subsection shall be to the effect that the negotiating objective specified in subsection (1) has been achieved.
(5) A report under this subsection shall be to the effect that the negotiating objective specified in subsection (1) has not been achieved.
(6) If a report is laid before the House of Commons in accordance with subsection (4), Part 3 of this Act shall cease to have effect on the day after that day.
(7) No regulations may be made for the commencement of provisions of Part 3 of this Act unless a report is laid before the House of Commons in accordance with subsection (5).”
This new clause establishes a negotiating objective to maintain the UK’s participation in the EU VAT Area and provides for Part 3 of the Act to expire if that objective is met.
New clause 3—Import tariffs under Part 1: restriction—
“(1) No power of the Treasury or of the Secretary of State to impose tariffs under or by virtue of the provisions specified in subsection (2) may be exercised in respect of goods originating from a country that is a Member State of the European Union.
(2) Those provisions are—
(a) section 8 (customs tariff),
(b) section 11 (quotas),
(c) section 13 (dumping of goods, etc),
(d) section 14 (agricultural goods), and
(e) section 15 (international disputes).”
This new clause prevents tariffs being imposed on goods originating from EU Member States.
New clause 4—Import tariffs under Part 1: pegging with EU tariffs—
“(1) In exercising the powers to impose or vary tariffs under or by virtue of the provisions of sections 8 to 15, it shall be the duty of the Treasury and the Secretary of State to secure that, so far as practicable, the level of those tariffs is the same as that imposed in respect of comparable goods imported into the European Union from third countries.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) the level of tariffs imposed in respect of comparable goods imported into the European Union shall be determined with reference to EU customs duties (within the meaning of that term given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 7), and
(b) “third countries” means any country other than the United Kingdom that is not a member of the EU Customs Union.”
This new clause requires tariffs set by the UK to be pegged to EU tariffs.
New clause 5—Regulatory alignment: VAT and excise—
“(1) In exercising the powers under Parts 3 and 4 of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Treasury to secure that, so far as practicable, there is regulatory alignment in respect of VAT and excise with the European Union.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “regulatory alignment” includes, for example—
(a) the administration of VAT and excise duties on the basis of the same regulatory approach as that required in respect of EU Member States,
(b) the setting of import VAT with regard to comparable taxation within the European Union, and
(c) the establishment of a duty deferment scheme comparable to that in operation while the United Kingdom was a member of the European Union.”
This new clause requires regulatory alignment with regard to VAT and excise between new UK arrangements and those within the EU or as a member of the EU.
New clause 6—Pre-commencement impact assessment of leaving the EU Customs Union—
“No Minister of the Crown may appoint a day for the commencement of any provision of this Act until a Minister of the Crown has laid before the House of Commons an impact assessment of—
(a) disapplying the EU’s Common External Tariff, and
(b) any changes to duties, quotas or associated customs processes made as a consequence of the UK leaving the European Union.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of any changes to existing cross-border taxation arrangements before any such changes are made.
New clause 7—Review of the impact of this Act on the UK economy—
“(1) Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the impact of the proposed customs regime to be implemented under this Act on—
(a) the economy of the United Kingdom,
(b) the different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England, and
(c) individual economic sectors.
(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must so far as practicable analyse the expected difference in outcomes between the proposed customs regime and continued participation in the EU Customs Union.
(3) In this section—
“parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
This new clause requires the Treasury to publish an assessment on the economic impact of proposed customs regime and compare it to the economic impact of remaining in the EU Customs Union.
New clause 8—Review of the impact of this Act on the Northern Ireland—Ireland border—
“(1) Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish and lay before each House of Parliament an assessment of the impact of the proposed customs regime to be implemented under this Act on Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must so far as practicable analyse the expected difference in outcomes between the proposed customs regime and continued participation in the EU Customs Union.
(3) The assessment must consider—
(a) the impact of the proposed customs regime on businesses that operate in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,
(b) what, if any, physical infrastructure will be required at the border crossings between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to enforce the proposed customs regime,
(c) if, and how, the proposed customs regime preserves the effects of the Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998, and
(d) what, if any, rules of the EU Customs Union are included in the proposed customs regime for the purposes of—
(i) promoting cooperation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,
(ii) supporting the economy of the entire island of Ireland, and
(iii) preserving the effects of the Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998.”
This new clause requires the Treasury to assess the impact of the proposed customs regime on Northern Ireland and Ireland, especially on the all-island economy, border crossings, the Good Friday Agreement and future alignment with the EU Customs Union.
New clause 9—Parliamentary scrutiny of public notices—
“(1) Any provision made by a public notice under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.
(2) Section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 applies to this section as if all references in that Act to a statutory instrument subject to annulment were a reference to a public notice.”
This new clause allows the House of Commons to annul provisions made by public notice under this Act.
New clause 10—Review of free zones—
“(1) The Treasury shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, carry out a review of the exercise and prospective exercise of the relevant powers relating to free zones.
(2) The review under this section shall in particular consider—
(a) the economic effects of previous designations under the relevant powers relating to free zones,
(b) the operation of free zones in other Member States of the European Union,
(c) the effects of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union on the case for the designation of free zones (including the prospective effects of the storage procedure under Part 2 of Schedule 2 in relation to free zones), and
(d) the prospective designation of Teesport as a free zone.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.
(4) In this section “the relevant powers relating to free zones” means—
(a) the power of the Treasury to make an order designating any area in the United Kingdom as a special area for customs purposes under section 100A of CEMA 1979 (designation of free zones), and
(b) the powers of HMRC Commissioners under section 17 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (free zone regulations).”
This new clause requires a review to be undertaken of the past and possible future exercise of powers to designate free zones and related powers, including comparative information and an analysis of the impact on the case of withdrawal from the EU.
New clause 11—Preparedness for a customs union with the European Union—
“(1) It shall be one of the negotiating objectives of Her Majesty’s Government in negotiations on the matters specified in subsection (2) to create an agreement which allows the United Kingdom to secure tariff free access to the European Union including the potential to participate in a customs union with the European Union, following exit from the European Union.
(2) Those matters are—
(a) the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, and
(b) a permanent agreement with the European Union for a period subsequent to the transitional period after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay a report before the House of Commons on the outcome of negotiations on each of the matters specified in subsection (2) in relation to the objective in subsection (1).
(4) A report under this section in relation to the matter specified in subsection (1)(a) shall include an account of—
(a) the extent to which the negotiating objective has been met,
(b) proposals for the commencement of provisions of Parts 1 and 2, and
(c) proposals for the modification of this Act in the exercise of powers under sections 31 or 54, or otherwise, in consequence of an agreement with the European Union.
(5) The provisions specified in section 55(1) come into force on the day after the day on which a report under subsection (4) is laid before the House of Commons.
(6) A report under this section in relation to the matter specified in subsection (1)(b) shall include an account of—
(a) the extent to which the negotiating objective has been met, and
(b) proposals for the modification of this Act in the exercise of powers under sections 31 or 54, or otherwise, in consequence of an agreement with the European Union.”
This new clause establishes a negotiating objective to secure an agreement which allows the United Kingdom to have tariff free access to the European Union including the potential to participate in a customs union with the European Union, following exit from the European Union, and makes associated provision about reporting and implementation and modification of the Bill as enacted.
New clause 12—Implementation of a customs union with the EU as a negotiating objective—
“(1) It shall be a negotiating objective of Her Majesty’s Government in negotiations on the matters specified in subsection (2) to secure the United Kingdom’s participation in a customs union with the European Union.
(2) Those matters are—
(a) the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, and
(b) a permanent agreement with the European Union for a period subsequent to the transitional period after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay a report before the House of Commons in accordance with either subsection (4) or subsection (5).
(4) A report under this subsection shall be to the effect that the negotiating objective specified in subsection (1) has been achieved.
(5) A report under this subsection shall be to the effect that the negotiating objective specified in subsection (1) has not been achieved.
(6) If a report is laid before the House of Commons in accordance with subsection (4), Parts 1 and 2 of this Act shall cease to have effect on the day after that day.
(7) If a report is laid before the House of Commons in accordance with subsection (5), the provisions specified in section 55(1) come into force on the day after that day.
(8) No regulations may be made under section 55(2) for the purpose of appointing a day for the coming into force of paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 (replacement of EU customs duties) unless a report has been laid before the House of Commons in accordance with subsection (5).”
This new clause establishes a negotiating objective to secure the United Kingdom’s participation in a customs union with the European Union, provides for Parts 1 and 2 of the Act to expire if that objective is met and makes the ending of the retention of EU customs duties conditional upon a report stating that the objective has not been met.
New clause 13—Enhanced parliamentary procedure—
“(1) No regulations to which this section applies may be made except in accordance with the steps set out in this section.
(2) This section applies to—
(a) the first regulations to be made under—
(i) section 8 (the customs tariff);
(ii) section 9 (preferential rates under arrangements) in respect of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom; and
(iii) section 39 (charge to export duty);
(b) any other regulations to be made under section 8 the effect of which is an increase in the amount of import duty payable under the customs tariff in a standard case (within the meaning of that section);
(c) any other regulations under section 9 the effect of which is an increase in the amount of import duty applicable to any goods set by any regulations to which paragraph (a)(ii) applies;
(d) any other regulations under section 39 the effect of which is an increase in the amount of export duty payable;
(e) any regulations under—
(i) section 10(1) (preferential rates given unilaterally);
(ii) section 11(1) (quotes);
(iii) section 13(5) (dumping of goods, foreign subsidies and increases in imports);
(iv) section 14(1) (increases in imports or changes in price of agricultural goods); and
(v) section 15(1) (international disputes).
(3) The first step is that a Minister of the Crown must lay before the House of Commons—
(a) a draft of the regulations that it is proposed be made;
(b) in respect of regulations to be made under section 9 to which this section applies, a statement of the terms of the arrangements made with the government of the country or territory outside the United Kingdom;
(c) in respect of regulations to be made under section 10(1), a statement on the matters specified in subsection (4);
(d) in respect of regulations to be made under section 11(1), a statement on the matters specified in subsection (5);
(e) in respect of regulations to be made under section 14(1), a statement of the reasons for proposing to make the regulations;
(f) in respect of draft regulations to be under section 15(1)—
(i) a statement of the dispute or other issue that has arisen; and
(ii) an account of the reasons why the Secretary of State considers that the condition in section 15(1)(b) has been met.
(4) The matters referred to in subsection (3)(c) are—
(a) the proposed application and non-application of the scheme to each country listed in Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 3;
(b) any proposed conditions for the application of the lower rates or nil rate; and
(c) any proposed provisions about the variation, suspension and withdrawal of the application of the lower rates or nil rate.
(5) The matters referred to in subsection (3)(d) are—
(a) in respect of any case where the condition in section 11(2)(a) is met, a statement of the terms of the arrangements made with the government of the country or territory outside the United Kingdom; and
(b) in respect of any case where the condition in section 11(2)(b) is met, a statement of the reasons why the Treasury consider it is appropriate for the goods concerned to be subject to a quota.
(6) The second step is that a Minister of the Crown must make a motion for a resolution in the House of Commons setting out, in respect of proposed regulations of which a draft has been laid in accordance with subsection (3)—
(a) in respect of draft regulations to be made under section 8 to which this section applies—
(i) the rate of import duty applicable to goods falling within a code given in regulations previously made under section 8 or in the draft of the regulations laid in accordance with subsection (3);
(ii) anything of a kind mentioned in section 8(3)(a) or (b) by reference to which the amount of any import duty applicable to any goods is proposed to be determined; and
(iii) the meaning of any relevant expression used in the motion.
(b) in respect of draft regulations to be made under section 9 to which this section applies, the rate of import duty applicable to goods, or any description of goods, originating from the country or territory.
(c) in respect of draft regulations to be made under section 11(1)—
(i) the amount of import duty proposed to be applicable to any goods that are or are proposed to be subject to a quota; and
(ii) the factors by reference to which a quota is to be determined.
(d) in respect of draft regulations to be made under section 10(1)—
(i) each country to which the proposed regulations apply;
(ii) the proposed conditions for the application of the lower rates or nil rate, and
(iii) the proposed provisions about the variation, suspension and withdrawal of the application of the lower rates or nil rate.
(e) in respect of draft regulations to be under section 13(5), the amount of import duty proposed to be applicable to any goods that are or are proposed to be subject to a quota.
(f) in respect of draft regulations to be made under section 14(1)—
(i) the proposed additional amount of import duty;
(ii) the proposed period for the purposes of section 14(1)(a); and
(iii) the proposed trigger price for the purposes of section 14(1)(b).
(g) in respect of draft regulations to be made under section 15(1), the proposed variation of import duty.
(h) in respect of draft regulations to be made under section 39 to which this section applies—
(i) the rate of export duty applicable to goods specified in the resolution;
(ii) any proposed export tariff (within the meaning given in section 39(3)(a)); and
(iii) any measure of quantity or size by reference to which it is proposed that the duty be charged.
(7) The third step is that the House of Commons passes a resolution arising from the motion made in the form specified in subsection (6) (whether in the form of that motion or as amended).
(8) The fourth step is that the regulations that may then be made must, in respect of any matters specified in the paragraph of subsection (6) that relate to the section under which the draft regulations are to be made, give effect to the terms of the resolution referred to in subsection (7).”
This new clause applies an enhanced parliamentary procedure to several of the provisions in the Bill, requiring that the House of Commons pass an amendable resolution authorising (i) the rate of import duty on particular goods; (ii) the key provisions of regulations that set quotas; (ii) the key provisions of regulations that lower import duties for eligible developing countries; (iii) the quota provisions of regulations to give effect to recommendations of the TRA; (iv) regulations setting additional import duty on agricultural goods; (v) regulations varying import duty as a result of an international dispute, and (vi) the rate of export duty on particular goods.
New clause 14—Additional regulations requiring the affirmative procedure—
“(1) No regulations to which this section applies may be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(2) This section applies to regulations under—
(a) section 10(4)(a) (meaning of “arms and ammunition”);
(b) section 12 (tariff suspension);
(c) section 19 (reliefs);
(d) section 22 (authorized economic operators);
(e) section 30 (general provision for the purposes of import duty);
(f) section 42 (EU law relating to VAT);
(g) paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 (power to add or remove countries from lists in that Schedule);
(h) paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 4 (definitions and determinations in relation to goods being “dumped”);
(i) paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 (determination of certain matters relating to “injury” to a UK industry);
(j) paragraph 26(1) of Schedule 4 (provision for suspension of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy remedies);
(k) paragraph (1)(2)(c) of Schedule 5 (defining a “significant” increase);
(l) paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 (definitions relating to “serious injury” to a UK industry);
(m) paragraph 22(1) of Schedule 5 (provision for suspension of safeguarding remedies)
and regulations making provision on the matters in section 11(3)(c).”
This new clause applies the affirmative resolution procedure to a number of powers in the Bill.
New clause 16—Additional regulations requiring the consent of the Scottish Parliament—
“(1) No regulations to which this section applies may be made unless a draft has been given consent by the Scottish Parliament.
(2) This section applies to regulations under—
(a) section 10(4)(a) (meaning of “arms and ammunition”);
(b) section 12 (tariff suspension);
(c) section 19 (reliefs);
(d) section 22 (authorized economic operators);
(e) section 30 (general provision for the purposes of import duty);
(f) section 42 (EU law relating to VAT);
(g) paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 (power to add or remove countries from lists in that Schedule);
(h) paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 4 (definitions and determinations in relation to goods being “dumped”);
(i) paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 (determination of certain matters relating to “injury” to a UK industry);
(j) paragraph 26(1) of Schedule 4 (provision for suspension of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy remedies);
(k) paragraph 1(2)(c) of Schedule 5 (defining a “significant” increase);
(l) paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 (definitions relating to “serious injury” to a UK industry);
(m) paragraph 22(1) of Schedule 5 (provision for suspension of safeguarding remedies) and regulations making provision on the matters in section 11(3)(c).
(n) section 14 (Increases in imports or changes in price of agricultural goods).”
This new clause would require Scottish Parliament consent to implement a number of powers in the Bill.
New clause 18—Tariffs not to differ from the European Union until House of Commons authority given—
“(1) Unless and until the House of Commons has passed a resolution in the terms specified in subsection (3), subsection (2) shall apply.
(2) Unless and until the resolution referred to in subsection (1) is passed—
(a) in exercising the powers to impose or vary tariffs under or by virtue of the provisions of sections 8 to 15, it shall be the duty of the Treasury and the Secretary of State to secure that, so far as practicable, the level of those tariffs is the same as that imposed in respect of comparable goods imported into the European Union from third countries, and
(b) no power of the Treasury or of the Secretary of State to impose tariffs under or by virtue of the provisions specified in subsection (5) may be exercised in respect of goods originating from a country that is a Member State of the European Union.
(3) The form of the resolution referred to in subsection (1) is “That this House authorises Her Majesty’s Government to set tariffs that differ from those of the European Union”.
(4) After the House of Commons has passed a resolution in the terms specified in subsection (3), subsection (2) shall no longer apply.
(5) The provisions referred to in subsection (2)(b) are—
(a) section 8 (customs tariff),
(b) section 11 (quotas),
(c) section 13 (dumping of goods, etc),
(d) section 14 (agricultural goods), and
(e) section 15 (international disputes).
(6) For the purposes of this section—
(a) the level of tariffs imposed in respect of comparable goods imported into the European Union shall be determined with reference to EU customs duties (within the meaning of that term given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 7), and
(b) “third countries” means any country other than the United Kingdom that is not a member of the EU Customs Union.”
This new clause would require a meaningful vote before the UK Government could introduce tariffs different to those of the EU.
New clause 20—Application to Scotland of arrangements for Northern Ireland—
“(1) No power of the Treasury or of the Secretary of State exercisable under the provisions specified in subsection (2) shall make customs arrangements in respect to goods that originated from a country that is a Member State of the European Union entering Northern Ireland unless one or both of the conditions in subsection (3) is met.
(2) Those provisions are—
(a) section 8 (customs tariff),
(b) section 11 (quotas),
(c) section 13 (dumping of goods, etc),
(d) section 14 (agricultural goods), and
(e) section 15 (international disputes).
(3) The conditions are that—
(a) the customs arrangements that apply to Northern Ireland also apply to Scotland, or
(b) the Scottish Ministers consent to the arrangements being made.”
This new clause prevents Northern Ireland being given a special status not available to Scotland, subject to approval by Scottish Ministers.
New clause 22—Review of the impact of this Act on the Northern Ireland—Ireland border (No. 2)—
“(1) Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish and lay before each House of Parliament an assessment of the impact on—
(a) Northern Ireland, and
(b) the Republic of Ireland,
of the proposed customs regime to be implemented under this Act.
(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must so far as practicable analyse the expected difference in outcomes between the proposed customs regime and continued participation in the EU Customs Union.
(3) The assessment must consider—
(a) the impact of the proposed customs regime on businesses that operate in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,
(b) what, if any, physical infrastructure will be required at the border crossings between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to enforce the proposed customs regime,
(c) if, and how, the proposed customs regime preserves the effects of the Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998, and
(d) what, if any, rules of the EU Customs Union are included in the proposed customs regime for the purposes of—
(i) promoting cooperation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,
(ii) supporting the economy of the entire island of Ireland, and
(iii) preserving the effects of the Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998.”
This new clause requires the Treasury to assess the impact of the proposed customs regime on Northern Ireland and Ireland, especially on the all-island economy, border crossings, the Good Friday Agreement and future alignment with the EU Customs Union.
New clause 23—Additional regulations requiring the consent of the Scottish Ministers—
“(1) No regulations to which this section applies may be made unless a draft has been given consent by the Scottish Ministers.
(2) This section applies to regulations under—
(a) section 10(4)(a) (meaning of “arms and ammunition”);
(b) section 12 (tariff suspension);
(c) section 19 (reliefs);
(d) section 22 (authorized economic operators);
(e) section 30 (general provision for the purposes of import duty);
(f) section 42 (EU law relating to VAT);
(g) paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 (power to add or remove countries from lists in that Schedule);
(h) paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 4 (definitions and determinations in relation to goods being “dumped”);
(i) paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 (determination of certain matters relating to “injury” to a UK industry);
(j) paragraph 26(1) of Schedule 4 (provision for suspension of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy remedies);
(k) paragraph 1(2)(c) of Schedule 5 (defining a “significant” increase);
(l) paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 (definitions relating to “serious injury” to a UK industry);
(m) paragraph 22(1) of Schedule 5 (provision for suspension of safeguarding remedies) and regulations making provision on the matters in section 11(3)(c);
(n) section 14 (increases in imports or changes in price of agricultural goods).”
This new clause would require Scottish Government approval to implement a number of powers in the Bill.
New clause 25—Review of the impact of this Act on the Scottish economy—
“(1) Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish and lay before each House of Parliament an assessment of the impact of the proposed customs regime to be implemented under this Act on the Scottish economy.
(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must so far as practicable analyse the expected difference in outcomes between the proposed customs regime and continued participation in the EU Customs Union.
(3) The assessment must consider—
(a) the impact of the proposed customs regime on businesses that operate in Scotland,
(b) the impact on public finances in Scotland.”
This new clause requires the Treasury to assess the impact of the proposed customs regime on Scotland.
New clause 26—Import tariffs under Part 1: making tariffs on the EU less or equal to those on third countries—
“(1) In exercising the powers to impose or vary rates of import duty under or by virtue of the provisions of sections 8 to 15, it shall be the duty of the Treasury and the Secretary of State to secure that, so far as practicable, the level of those rates of import duty in respect of goods imported from the European Union is no greater than those imposed on third countries.
(2) For the purposes of this section “third countries” means any country other than the United Kingdom that is not a member of the EU Customs Union.”
This new clause requires tariffs set by the UK on EU goods to be no greater than those imposed on any third countries.
New clause 27—Import tariffs under Part 1: preventing tariffs on goods from third countries being lower than those on comparable goods from the European Union—
“(1) In exercising the powers to impose or vary rates of import duty under or by virtue of the provisions of sections 8 to 15, it shall be the duty of the Treasury and the Secretary of State to secure that, so far as practicable, rates of import duty are applied in respect of goods imported from third countries are not set at a lower rate than the rate of import duty set by the European Union in respect of the same goods and countries.
(2) This section does not apply to—
(a) eligible developing countries, or
(b) least developed countries.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “third countries” means any country other than the United Kingdom that is not a member of the EU Customs Union;
(b) “eligible developing countries” and “least developed countries” means those countries defined as such in Schedule 3.”
This new clause would prevent tariffs on goods from third countries being lower than those on comparable goods from the European Union.
New clause 28—Import tariffs under Part 1: preventing tariffs on third countries which may cause a dispute with the EU—
“(1) In exercising the powers to impose or vary rates of import duty under or by virtue of the provisions of sections 8 to 15, it shall be the duty of the Treasury and the Secretary of State to secure that, so far as practicable, rates of import duty are not applied in respect of goods imported from third countries which may jeopardise customs arrangements with the European Union or cause any dispute with the European Union.
(2) For the purposes of this section ‘third countries’ means any country other than the United Kingdom that is not a member of the EU Customs Union.”
This new clause would prevent a UK Government from entering into customs arrangements with third countries which would jeopardise customs arrangements with the European Union or cause any dispute with the European Union.
New clause 29—Import tariffs under Part 1: pegging with EU tariffs—
“(1) In exercising the powers to impose or vary rates of import duty under or by virtue of the provisions of sections 8 to 15, it shall be the duty of the Treasury and the Secretary of State to secure that, so far as practicable, rates of import duty are the same as those imposed in respect of comparable goods imported into the European Union from third countries.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) the rates of import duty imposed in respect of comparable goods imported into the European Union shall be determined with reference to EU customs duties (within the meaning of that term given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 7), and
(b) ‘third countries’ means any country other than the United Kingdom that is not a member of the EU Customs Union.”
This new clause requires tariffs set by the UK to be pegged to EU tariffs.
New clause 30—Super-affirmative resolution procedure—
“(1) For the purposes of this Act, the ‘super-affirmative resolution procedure’ in relation to the making of regulations to which this section applies is as follows.
(2) If a Minister considers it necessary to proceed with the making of regulations to which this section applies, the Minister shall lay before the House of Commons—
(a) draft regulations,
(b) an explanatory document under subsection (3), and
(c) a declaration under subsection (4).
(3) The explanatory document must—
(a) introduce and explain any amendments made to retained EU law by each proposed regulation, and
(b) set out the reason why each such amendment is necessary (or, in the case where the Minister is unable to make a statement of necessity under subsection (4)(a), the reason why each such amendment is nevertheless considered appropriate).
(4) The declaration under subsection (2)(c) must either—
(a) state that, in the Minister’s view, the provisions of the draft regulations do not exceed what is necessary to prevent, remedy or mitigate any deficiency in retained EU law arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU (a “statement of necessity”), or
(b) include a statement to the effect that although the Minister is unable to make a statement of necessity the Government nevertheless proposes to exercise the power to make the regulations in the form of the draft.
(5) Subject as follows, if after the expiry of the 21-day period a committee of the House of Commons appointed to consider draft regulations under this section has not reported to the House of Commons a resolution in respect of the draft regulations laid under section 32(2A) or 42(6), the Minister may proceed to make a statutory instrument in the form of the draft regulations.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.
(7) The procedure in subsection (8) to (15) shall apply to the proposal for the draft regulations instead of the procedure in subsection (5) if—
(a) the House of Commons so resolves within the 21-day period,
(b) the committee appointed to consider draft regulations under this section so recommends within the 21-day period and the House of Commons does not by resolution reject the recommendation within that period, or
(c) the draft regulations contain provision to—
(i) establish a public authority in the United Kingdom,
(ii) provide for any function of an EU entity or public authority in a member State to be exercisable instead by a public authority in the United Kingdom established by regulations under sections 42, 43 or schedule 8,
(iii) provides for any function of an EU entity or public authority in a member State of making an instrument of a legislative character to be exercisable instead by a public authority in the United Kingdom,
(iv) imposes, or otherwise relates to, a fee in respect of a function exercisable by a public authority in the United Kingdom,
(v) creates, or widens the scope of, a criminal offence, or
(vi) creates or amends a power to legislate.
(8) The Minister must have regard to—
(a) any representations,
(b) any resolution of the House of Commons, and
(c) any recommendations of a committee of the House of Commons charged with reporting on the draft regulations, made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft regulations.
(9) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister wishes to make regulations in the terms of the draft, the Minister must lay before the House of Commons a statement—
(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (8)(a), and
(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.
(10) The Minister may after the laying of such a statement make regulations in the terms of the draft if it is approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(11) However, a committee of the House of Commons charged with reporting on the draft regulations may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (9) and before the draft regulations are approved by that House under subsection (10), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft regulations.
(12) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of the House of Commons under subsection (11) in relation to draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft regulations in the House of Commons under subsection (10) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of the House of Commons.
(13) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister wishes to make regulations consisting of a version of the draft regulations with material changes, the Minister must lay before Parliament—
(a) revised draft regulations, and
(b) a statement giving details of—
(i) any representations made under subsection (8)(a); and
(ii) the revisions proposed.
(14) The Minister may after laying revised draft regulations and a statement under subsection (9) make regulations in the terms of the revised draft if it is approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(15) However, a committee of the House of Commons charged with reporting on the revised draft regulations may, at any time after the revised draft regulations are laid under subsection (12) and before it is approved by the House of Commons under subsection (13), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations.
(16) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of the House of Commons under subsection (14) in relation to revised draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations in the House of Commons under subsection (13) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of the House of Commons.
(17) In this section, references to the ‘21-day’ and ‘60-day’ periods in relation to any draft regulations are to the periods of 21 and 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft regulations were laid before Parliament.”
This new clause applies an amended version of the super-affirmative resolution procedure to certain powers to make regulations under Schedules 4 and 5, and Clause 42.
New clause 31—VAT deferral scheme—
“(1) This section applies if it appears to the Secretary of State that the United Kingdom will cease to be a member of the European Union taxation and customs union.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations introduce a domestic deferral scheme for UK importers.
(3) In designing a scheme under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must consult with whichever relevant stakeholders deemed by the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
(4) Regulations under subsection (2) may be made only if a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the House of Commons.”
This new clause ensures that in the event that the UK is no longer a member of the EU VAT area, the Secretary of State must by draft affirmative regulation introduce a VAT deferral scheme.
New clause 32—Rules of origin—
“(1) Where the exigencies of trade so require, a document proving origin may be issued in the UK in accordance with the rules of origin in force in the country or territory of destination or any other method identifying the country where the goods were wholly obtained or underwent their last substantial transformation. The Secretary of State may by regulations specify—
(a) the bodies that certificate origin for the purposes of a certificate under subsection (1),
(b) the specifications of the certificate, and
(c) any other relevant factor.”
This new clause would allow a document proving origin to be issued in the UK and would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the bodies that can issue a certificate and the specifications of a certificate as well as other relevant factors.
New clause 33—Additional regulations requiring the affirmative procedure (No. 2)—
“(1) No regulations to which this section applies may be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(2) This section applies to regulations under—
(a) section 8(1) (the customs tariff);
(b) section 14(1) (agricultural goods);
(c) section 19(1) (reliefs);
(d) section 22(1) (authorised economic operators);
(e) section 30 (general provision for the purposes of import duty);
(f) section 39(1) (export duties);
(g) section 42(5) (exclusion from principal VAT directive);
(h) section 47(2) (exclusion from or modification of EU law relating to excise duty).”
This new clause applies the affirmative resolution procedure to a number of powers in the Bill.
New clause 34—Exclusion from tariffs for land border—
“Upon the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, the United Kingdom shall not charge any customs duty or impose any quotas on goods entering the United Kingdom across the land border between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom.”
New clause 35—Exclusion from tariffs for goods imported from the Republic of Ireland—
“Part 1 of this Act shall not apply to the import of any good into the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland.”
New clause 36—Prohibition on collection of certain taxes or duties on behalf of territory without reciprocity—
“(1) Subject to subsection (2), it shall be unlawful for HMRC to account for any duty of customs or VAT or excise duty collected by HMRC to the Government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply if the Treasury declare by Order that arrangements have been entered into by Her Majesty’s Government and that government under which that government will account to HMRC for those duties and taxes collected in that country on a reciprocal basis.”
New clause 37—Single United Kingdom customs territory—
“(1) It shall be unlawful for Her Majesty‘s Government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain.
(2) For the purposes of this section “customs territory” shall have the same meaning as in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1947, as amended.”
Amendment 26, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert
“or goods coming from the EEA”.
This amendment seeks to remove the Bill’s provisions to grant the UK Government the ability to impose customs on EEA goods.
Amendment 68, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert
“or goods entering the United Kingdom across the land border between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom”.
Amendment 69, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert
“or goods imported into the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland.”
Government amendment 74.
Amendment 71, in clause 8, page 6, line 6, at end insert—
“(e) the interests of producers in the United Kingdom,
(f) the desirability of maintaining United Kingdom standards of animal welfare, food safety and environmental protection.”
This amendment would require the Treasury, when considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply to any goods, to have regard to the interests of UK producers (e.g. farmers) and to the desirability of ensuring that UK standards of animal welfare, food safety and environmental protection are not undermined by imports produced to lower standards.
Amendment 119, in clause 8, page 6, line 6, at end insert—
“(e) the impacts on sustainable development.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to Government obligations to sustainable development in considering the rate of import duty.
Government amendment 84.
Amendment 21, in clause 13, page 9, line 18, at end insert—
“(4A) Subsection (4B) applies where the TRA or the Secretary of State is considering whether the application of a remedy, or the acceptance of a recommendation to do so—
(a) is in the public interest, or
(b) meets either of the economic interest tests described in paragraph 25 of Schedule 4 or paragraph 21 of Schedule 5.
(4B) In making a consideration to which this subsection applies, notwithstanding the provisions of Schedules 4 and 5, the TRA or the Secretary of State must give special consideration to the need to eliminate the trade distorting effect of injurious dumping and to restore effective competition, and must presume the application of a remedy or the acceptance of a recommendation to do so to be in the public interest and to have met the economic interest test unless this special consideration is significantly outweighed.”
This amendment ensures that there is a presumption that if dumping is found, a remedial action will be taken.
Amendment 54, in clause 15, page 10, line 18, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must lay before the House of Commons an annual report on the exercise of the powers under this section including information on—
(a) the relevant international law authorising the exercise of the powers in each case, and
(b) the matters in dispute or issues arising in each case.”
This amendment requires the Government to report on the circumstances of, and international law basis for, each variation of tariffs as a result of a trade dispute.
Amendment 55, in clause 22, page 14, line 36, at end insert—
“(4) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on the proposed exercise of the power of the HMRC Commissioners to make regulations under subsection (1), including in particular—
(a) the proposed criteria to be applied in determining whether or not any person should be an authorised economic operator,
(b) an assessment of the structure of the authorised economic operator system in Germany, Austria and such other countries as the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers relevant,
(c) the proposed differences between the structure that is proposed to be established by the first exercise of the power to make regulations under subsection (1) and each of those structures described in accordance with paragraph (b),
(d) the level of proposed resources to be allocated by the HMRC Commissioners for the authorisation of new authorised economic operators, and
(e) the target timetable for the authorisation of—
(i) new authorised economic operators in each class, and
(ii) authorised economic operator certification renewals in each class.”
This amendment requires the Government to report on the proposed operation of the powers of the HMRC under Clause 22, including comparative information.
Amendment 33, in clause 25, page 17, line 2, leave out “Data Protection Act 1998” and insert “data protection legislation”.
This amendment and Amendment 34 seeks to provide that the powers of disclosure cannot be exercised in breach of the updated data protection framework to be enshrined in the Data Protection Act 2018.
Amendment 34, in clause 25, page 17, line 4, at end insert—
“(8) In this section, “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018.”
Amendment 70, page 18, line 11, leave out clause 31.
Amendment 72, in clause 31, page 18, line 34, at end insert—
“(4A) In the case of a customs union between the United Kingdom and the European Union, Her Majesty may not make a declaration by Order In Council under subsection (4) unless the arrangements have been approved by an Act of Parliament.”
This amendment provides that the delegated powers under this clause may not be exercised until a proposed customs union with the European Union has been approved by a separate Act of Parliament.
Amendment 8, page 18, line 38, at beginning insert “subject to subsection (8)”.
This amendment paves the way for Amendment 9.
Amendment 9, page 19, line 10, at end insert—
“(8) When the power under subsection (4) has been exercised in respect of a customs union between the United Kingdom and the European Union, the powers in subsections (4) and (5) may not be exercised so as to—
(a) provide that that customs union shall cease to have effect, or
(b) modify or disapply provision made by or under any other Act in a way that provides that that customs union shall cease to have effect.”
This amendment would prevent the delegated powers under Clause 31 being used to end a customs union once the transition period has finished. It provides that the delegated powers under Clause 31, once exercised in relation to a customs union with the EU, cannot be exercised to provide for departure from such a union.
Amendment 56, in clause 32, page 19, line 14, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
This amendment is consequential on NC33.
Government amendment 75.
Amendment 35, in clause 32, page 19, line 18, at end insert—
“(c) regulations under paragraph 4(2), 9(3) or 14(4) of Schedule 4.”
This amendment provides for regulations made under certain provisions of Schedule 4 (regarding dumping of goods or foreign subsidies causing injury to UK industry) to be subject to the made affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure.
Amendment 36, page 19, line 18, at end insert—
“(c) regulations under paragraph 1(2), 3(2), 4(2) or 5 of Schedule 5.”
This amendment provides for regulations made under certain provisions of Schedule 5 (regarding an increase in imports causing serious injury to UK producers) to be subject to the made affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure.
Government amendment 76.
Amendment 37, page 19, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) Section (Super-affirmative resolution procedure) applies to regulations under paragraph 1(3), 3(5), 5(2), or 6(2) of Schedule 4.”
This amendment provides for regulations made under certain provisions of Schedule 4 (regarding dumping of goods or foreign subsidies causing injury to UK industry) to be subject to the superaffirmative resolution procedure, as defined in NC12.
Amendment 38, page 19, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) Section (Super-affirmative resolution procedure) applies to regulations under paragraph 2(2) or 2(3) of Schedule 5.”
This amendment provides for regulations made under certain provisions of Schedule 5 (regarding an increase in imports causing serious injury to UK producers) to be subject to the superaffirmative resolution procedure, as defined in NC12.
Amendment 57, page 19, line 32, leave out “subsection (2)” and insert
“section (Additional regulations requiring the affirmative procedure (Amendment 2))”.
This amendment is consequential on NC33.
Amendment 39, page 19, line 32, after “(2)” insert “or (2A)”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 38.
Amendment 40, page 27, line 5, after second “to”, insert “number”.
This amendment clarifies that goods may be defined for the purposes of the export tariff simply by reference to their number.
Government amendment 77.
Amendment 41, in clause 39, page 27, line 12, at end insert—
“(aa) the interests of manufacturers in the United Kingdom,”.
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to the interests of manufacturers in considering the rate of export duty.
Amendment 42, page 27, line 17, at end insert “and
(e) the public interest.”
Amendment 120, page 27, line 17, at end insert “and
(e) the impacts on sustainable development.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to Government obligations towards sustainable development in considering the rate of export duty.
Amendment 58, in clause 40, page 27, line 35, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
This amendment is consequential on NC33.
Amendment 59, page 28, line 7, leave out “subsection (2)” and insert
“section (Additional regulations requiring the affirmative procedure (Amendment 2))”.
This amendment is consequential on NC33.
Amendment 43, in clause 42, page 29, line 23, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment would be to remove from the Bill the provision that retained EU law on VAT should not have effect, despite forming part of UK law as a result of Clause 3 of the European.
Amendment 44, page 29, line 44, leave out from “regulation” to end of line 45.
The effect of this amendment would be to ensure that the UK Government does not exclude aspects of the EU’s principal VAT Directive that remain relevant by delegated legislation.
Government amendment 78.
Amendment 45, page 30, line 1, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
“(6) Section (Super-affirmative resolution procedure) applies to regulations made under this section.”
This amendment applies the super-affirmative resolution procedure, described in NC12, to regulations made under this section.
Amendment 60, page 30, line 1, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment is consequential on NC33.
Government amendment 79.
Amendment 62, page 30, line 12, at end insert—
“(9) This section shall, subject to subsection (10), cease to have effect at the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(10) The Treasury may by regulations provide that this section shall continue in force for an additional period of up to three years from the end of the period specified in subsection (9).
(11) The power to make regulations under subsection (10) may only be exercised once.
(12) No regulations may be made under subsection (10) unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment sunsets the provisions of Clause 42.
Amendment 63, in clause 45, page 31, line 25, at end insert—
“(5) This section shall, subject to subsection (6), cease to have effect at the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(6) The Treasury may by regulations provide that this section shall continue in force for an additional period of up to three years from the end of the period specified in subsection (5).
(7) The power to make regulations under subsection (7) may only be exercised once.
(8) No regulations may be made under subsection (7) unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment sunsets the provisions of Clause 45.
Government amendment 80.
Amendment 64, in clause 47, page 33, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) This section shall, subject to subsection (6), cease to have effect at the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(6) The Treasury may by regulations provide that this section shall continue in force for an additional period of up to three years from the end of the period specified in subsection (5).
(7) The power to make regulations under subsection (7) may only be exercised once.
(8) No regulations may be made under subsection (7) unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment sunsets the provisions of Clause 47.
Government amendment 81.
Amendment 22, in clause 48, page 33, line 29, at end insert—
“(5A) No regulations may be made under section 47 unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the House of Commons.”
Government amendment 23.
Amendment 61, page 33, line 31, leave out “applies” and insert
“or section (Additional regulations requiring the affirmative procedure (Amendment 2)) apply”.
This amendment is consequential on NC33.
Amendment 46, in clause 51, page 34, line 39, leave out second “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This amendment provides that the power to make regulations about VAT, customs duty and excise duty in consequence of UK withdrawal from the EU is only exercised when it is necessary to do so.
Government amendment 82.
Amendment 10, page 35, line 1, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment prevents regulations under Clause 51 from making any provision as might be made by an Act of Parliament.
Amendment 67, page 35, line 2, after “Act”, insert
“other than provision creating a delegated power”.
This amendment removes the power for regulations made under Clause 51 to create further delegated powers (tertiary legislation).
Amendment 47, page 35, line 4, at end insert—
“(c) may not be made after 29 March 2021.
‘(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the date in paragraph (1)(c) to ensure that the day specified is the day that any transition period related to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union comes to an end.
(2B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2A) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
This amendment inserts a sunset provision that disallows any regulations to be made under Clause 51 after 29 March 2021, while also allowing the Secretary of State to alter that date, by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, in the event that this is not the date on which any transition period following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union comes to an end.
Amendment 48, page 35, line 10, after “section” insert
“, apart from regulations under subsection (2A),”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 47.
Amendment 49, page 35, line 25, after “apply” insert
“, apart from regulations under subsection (2A),”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 47.
Amendment 65, page 35, line 38, at end insert—
“(10) This section shall, subject to subsection (11), cease to have effect at the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(11) The Treasury may by regulations provide that this section shall continue in force for an additional period of up to three years from the end of the period specified in subsection (10).
(12) The power to make regulations under subsection (11) may only be exercised once.
(13) No regulations may be made under subsection (11) unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment sunsets the provisions of Clause 51.
Amendment 50, in clause 54, page 37, line 5, leave out second “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This amendment ensures that regulations making consequential and transitional provision may only be made when necessary.
Amendment 51, page 37, line 14, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This amendment ensures that regulations making consequential and transitional provision may only be made when necessary.
Amendment 2, in clause 55, in clause 55, page 38, line 15, leave out from “force” to end of line 16 and insert
“in accordance with the provisions of section (EU Customs Union and pre-commencement requirements) (7).”
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Amendment 13, page 38, line 15, leave out from “force” to end of line 16 and insert
“in accordance with the provisions of section (Preparedness for a customs union with the European Union) (5)”.
This amendment is consequential on NC11.
Amendment 20, page 38, line 15, leave out from “force” to end of line 16 and insert
“in accordance with the provisions of section (Implementation of a customs union with the EU as a negotiating objective) (7)”.
This amendment is consequential on NC12.
Amendment 5, page 38, line 17, leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and insert—
“(a) section (Pre-commencement impact assessment of leaving the EU Customs Union), and”.
This amendment is consequential on NC6.
Amendment 52, page 38, line 17, after “(2)”, insert “and (2A)”.
This amendment paves the way for Amendment 53.
Amendment 6, page 38, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment is consequential on NC6.
Amendment 3, page 38, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) No regulations may be made for the purpose of appointing a day for the coming into force of paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 (replacement of EU customs duties) unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the House of Commons.”
This amendment requires regulations commencing paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 4, page 38, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) No regulations may be made for the purpose of appointing a day for the coming into force of any provision in Part 3 (amending or superseding EU law relating to VAT) unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the House of Commons.”
This amendment requires regulations commencing provisions in Part 3 to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 28, page 38, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) may not be made until the Secretary of State has consulted with the Scottish Ministers on the effect of deviating from EU levels of import duties in relation to—
(a) preferential rates,
(b) dumping of goods and foreign subsidies,
(c) international disputes,
(d) replacement of EU trade duties.”
This amendment would require the UK Government to consult Scottish Ministers before deviating from EU levels of import duties in relation to (a) preferential rates (b) dumping of goods and foreign subsidies (c) international disputes (d) replacement of EU trade duties.
Amendment 29, page 38, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) The following provisions come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may be regulations under this section appoint—
(a) section 41 (abolition of acquisition VAT and extension of import VAT),
(b) section 42 (EU law related to VAT), and
(c) section 43 and Schedule 8 (VAT amendment connected with withdrawal from EU).
(2B) Regulations under subsection (2A) may not be made until the Secretary of State has consulted with the Scottish Ministers on—
(a) the effect of leaving the EU VAT area on the lawful importation of goods into the United Kingdom from the European Union, and
(b) the effect of abolishing acquisition VAT and extending import VAT on the lawful importation of goods into the United Kingdom from the European Union.”
This amendment would require the UK Government to consult with Scottish Ministers before leaving the EU VAT Area before any system of upfront import VAT could be applied.
Amendment 31, page 38, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) may not be made until the Secretary of State has laid before the House of Commons an impact assessment that considers the effect on Scotland of deviating from EU levels of import duties in relation to
(a) preferential rates
(b) dumping of goods and foreign subsidies
(c) international disputes
(d) replacement of EU trade duties.”
This amendment would require the UK Government to make a Scottish impact assessment on the effects of deviating from EU levels of import duties in relation to (a) preferential rates (b) dumping of goods and foreign subsidies (c) international disputes (d) replacement of EU trade duties.
Amendment 53, page 38, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) The following provisions come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may be regulations under this section appoint—
(a) section 41 (abolition of acquisition VAT and extension of import VAT),
(b) section 42 (EU law related to VAT), and
(c) section 43 and Schedule 8 (VAT amendment connected with withdrawal from EU).
(2B) Regulations under subsection (2A) may not be made until the Secretary of State has laid before the House of Commons an impact assessment that considers—
(a) the effect of leaving the EU VAT area on the lawful importation of goods into the United Kingdom from the European Union, and
(b) the effect of abolishing acquisition VAT and extending import VAT on the lawful importation of goods into the United Kingdom from the European Union.”
This amendment would require the UK Government to make an impact assessment on the effects of leaving the EU VAT Area before any system of upfront import VAT could be applied to goods lawfully being imported into the UK from the European Union under EU Law.
Amendment 7, page 38, line 34, at end insert—
“(3A) Subsection (3) is subject to section (Pre-commencement impact assessment of leaving the EU Customs Union).”
This amendment is consequential on NC6.
Amendment 15, in schedule 4, page 58, line 2, after “consumption”, insert “by independent customers”.
This amendment requires the comparable price for the purposes of determining the normal value to be assessed with respect to consumption by independent customers.
Amendment 16, page 58, line 4, at end insert
“sub-paragraphs (2A) to (2L) and with”.
This amendment paves the way for Amendment 17.
Amendment 17, page 58, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) the following shall apply.
(2B) Where the exporter in the exporting country does not produce or does not sell the like goods, the normal value may be established on the basis of prices of other sellers or producers.
(2C) Prices between parties which appear to be associated or to have a compensatory arrangement with each other shall not be considered to be in the ordinary course of trade and shall not be used to establish the normal value unless it is determined that they are unaffected by the relationship.
(2D) Sales of the like goods intended for consumption in the exporting foreign country or territory shall normally be used to determine the normal value if such sales volume constitutes 5% or more of the sales volume exported to the United Kingdom, but a lower volume of sales may be used when, for example, the prices charged are considered representative for the market concerned.
(2E) When there are no or insufficient sales of the like goods in the ordinary course of trade, or where, because of the particular market situation, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value shall be calculated on the basis of—
(a) the cost of production in the country of origin plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits, or
(b) the export prices, in the ordinary course of trade, to an appropriate third country, provided that those prices are representative.
(2F) Sales of the like goods in the domestic market of the exporting foreign country or territory, or export sales to a third country, at prices below unit production costs plus selling, general and administrative costs shall be treated as not being in the ordinary course of trade by reason of price, and disregarded in determining the normal value, if it is determined that such sales are made within an extended period in substantial quantities, and are at prices which do not provide for the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.
(2G) The amounts for selling, for general and administrative costs and for profits shall be based whenever possible on actual data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product by the exporter or producer under investigation.
(2H) When it is not possible to determine such amounts on the basis prescribed in sub-paragraph (2G), the amounts may be determined on the basis of—
(a) the weighted average of the actual amounts determined for other exporters or producers subject to investigation in respect of production and sales of the like product in the domestic market of the country of origin,
(b) the actual amounts applicable to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the same general category of products for the exporter or producer in question in the domestic market of the country of origin,
(c) any other reasonable method, provided that the amount for profit so established shall not exceed the profit normally realised by other exporters or producers on sales of products of the same general category in the domestic market of the country of origin.
(2I) If the TRA determines that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in the exporting country due to the existence in that country of significant distortions, the normal value shall be constructed exclusively on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks, subject to the following provisions.
(2J) “Significant distortions” for this purpose means distortions which occur when reported prices or costs, including the costs of raw materials and energy, are not the result of free market forces because they are affected by substantial government intervention.
(2K) The TRA shall use the corresponding costs of production and sale in an appropriate representative country with a similar level of economic development as the exporting country, provided the relevant data are readily available; and, where there is more than one such country, preference shall be given, where appropriate, to countries with an adequate level of social and environmental protection.
(2L) If such data are not available, the TRA may use any other evidence it deems appropriate for establishing a fair normal value, including undistorted international prices, costs, or benchmarks; or costs in the exporting country to the extent that they are positively established not to be distorted.”
This amendment makes further provision on the face of the Bill about how the normal value and the comparable price are to be determined in certain circumstances.
Amendment 18, page 58, line 6, at end insert—
“(2M) A fair comparison shall be made between the export price and the normal value.
(2N) The comparison for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) shall be made at the same level of trade and in respect of sales made at, as closely as possible, the same time and with due account taken of other differences which affect price comparability.
(2O) Where the normal value and the export price as established are not on such a comparable basis, due allowance, in the form of adjustments, shall be made in each case, on its merits, for differences in factors which are claimed, and demonstrated, to affect prices and price comparability.”
This amendment provides for fair comparison between the export price and the normal value.
Amendment 19, page 58, leave out lines 8 to 15 and insert—
“(a) to provide guidance with respect to the application of sub-paragraphs (2) to (2O).”
This amendment replaces the provision for definitions of key terms and the determination of related matters in individual cases with guidance about the application of the existing provisions and those contained in Amendments 17 and 18.
Amendment 25, page 58, line 12, and end insert—
“(v) ‘specified cases where it is not appropriate to use the price in paragraph 2(a)” including details on determining normal value in the presence of state distortions and non-market economy situations.’
This amendment would provide certainty by placing a marker in primary legislation to ensure that secondary legislation will clarify how, in anti-dumping investigations, the TRA will calculate the level of dumping for cases where the domestic prices of the alleged dumped imports cannot be used.
Government amendments 103 to 112.
Amendment 24, page 76, line 12, at end insert—
“25A (1) The TRA shall, in determining the amount which it is satisfied would be adequate to remove the injury described in paragraph 14(3)(b) or 18(4)(b), take account of all elements of the material injury being caused to the UK industry, including, but not limited to, the impact of reduced sales volumes, price suppression and curtailment of investment. Regulations may make further provision for this purpose.
(2) Regulations may make provision for specific circumstances in which paragraph 14(3)(b) or 18(4)(b) may not apply.”
Amendment 32, page 76, line 12, at end insert—
“25A (1) The TRA shall, in determining the amount which it is satisfied would be adequate to remove the injury described in paragraph 14(3)(b) or 18(4)(b), take account of all elements of the material injury being caused to UK industry, consumers and public administration and finances, including, but not limited to, the impact of reduced sales volumes, price suppression, curtailment of investment and availability of goods. Regulations may make further provision for this purpose.
(2) Regulations may make provision for specific circumstances in which paragraph 14(3)(b) or 18(4)(b) may not apply.
(3) No regulations may be made under sub-paragraph (2) unless—
(a) A Minister of the Crown has made a statement to the House of Commons that Her Majesty’s Government has negotiated with the relevant foreign government in order to remedy the activity causing injury to UK industry;
(b) lay before the House of Commons an impact assessment of implementing the regulations; and
(c) a draft of those regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the House of Commons.”
This amendment ensures the TRA considers a wider range of economic variables when considering policy responses to trade disputes and allows UK ministers to make associated regulations setting aside this wider set of considerations, so long as the UK Government has entered negotiations with the third country in question, provided an impact assessment on policy changes and that the policy change has been approved by a resolution in the House of Commons.
Government amendment 113.
Government amendments 85 to 96.
Government amendment 114.
Government amendments 97 and 98.
Government amendments 115 and 116.
Government amendment 99.
Government amendments 117 and 118.
Government amendments 100 to 102.
Amendment 11, in schedule 7, page 122, line 35, at end insert—
“88A (1) Section 100A (designation of free zones) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2), insert—
‘(2A) The Treasury must, no later than 2 years after the passing of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, exercise the power under subsection (1) to designate Teesport as a free zone.’
(3) After subsection (3), insert—
‘(3A) The first exercise of the power under subsection (1) in pursuance of the duty under subsection (2A) shall be for a period of no less than 5 years.’”
This amendment requires the Treasury to designate Teesport as a free zone for customs purposes.
Amendment 73, in schedule 8, page 135, leave out paragraph 14.
Government amendment 83.
Anna Soubry
I rise to speak in support of new clause 1 and new clause 12, and I shall also seek to speak briefly against new clause 36 and amendment 73. I hope that there will be Divisions, in the event of which I will vote against new clause 36 and amendment 73. It is my firm view that it is deeply regrettable that the Government have accepted the new clause and amendment, even though they clearly seek to undermine, if not wreck, the great advances made in the White Paper.
I shall speak, as I like to think I always do, with openness, frankness and honesty. When I became a Business Minister in David Cameron’s Government in 2015, I would be the first to admit that I did not know the finer details of how many of our manufacturing industries and businesses actually worked. I knew about supply chains and their value, but I could not claim, in any way, shape or form, to be particularly familiar with them. I relished my brief, though, so I was soon enmeshed in the manufacturing sector in particular. For example, I had responsibility for the automotive sector, aerospace and, of course, the steel industry, which many Members will remember was having a particularly difficult time. I soon became not quite an expert, but I certainly knew my brief. I understood how supply chains worked, the value of frictionless trade and what this thing called “just in time” was really all about. I had never actually seen it, though, until Friday, when I went to the Toyota factory at Burnaston, which is just outside Derby. I would make it compulsory for every single Member to go to Toyota—they could go to another car manufacturer in Swindon, or to Nissan in Sunderland, as I did shortly after the EU referendum—so that they could begin to understand what a supply chain is, why it relies on frictionless borders and what “just in time” means.
Let me give Members a bit of history about that remarkable Toyota plant just outside Derby. It is actually a legacy to Margaret Thatcher. It opened at the beginning of the 1990s. Some of us are old enough to remember those times and what had happened in many of our traditional manufacturing industries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who is sitting next to me, has a business in her constituency called Brush. It is a long-standing business that has provided good-quality jobs for generations. I had Siemens in my constituency. At one time, I had a number of miners who worked in local pits in north Nottinghamshire and in Derbyshire. In due course, those pits closed, as did Siemens.
When we talk about Brexit, people extrapolate all sorts of things from the vote. One thing that definitely occurred—I know that it occurred for people in my constituency—was that a number of people voted leave because they felt left behind by what we call this global world and the global way of doing business. These people used to work, often down the pits in Nottinghamshire—I am from Worksop, so I understand the sort of lives that miners had and I have no romantic attachment to the coal mining industry—and in factories such as Siemens in high-quality jobs. Those jobs invariably paid good money, but they also added even more value to people’s lives. It was not just about the fact that it was work, which is, in itself, the right thing to do; it was not just the wages, which, in the deep coal mines in Nottinghamshire and at Siemens, were very good; and it was not just the trade and the skills that they conveyed—it was also that feeling of community and being valued. It was about all those great traditional British manufacturing values, which, in truth, began to disappear through the ’80s and into the ’90s. What the great Japanese car manufacturers brought back was much of that high-valued, highly skilled, super-effective and super-efficient manufacturing industry. That practice was not just confined to the automotive sector, because it runs right across many other sectors in manufacturing, which makes up 20% of our economy.
I say to all Conservative Members, “Shame on you if you have a manufacturer in your constituency that you have not been to to understand how a modern manufacturing business works and how it needs frictionless trade for the supply chains to work. Shame on you if you have not taken the opportunity to go to those places that might be outwith your constituency, but where your constituents work.” I say that very gently—
Anna Soubry
I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention in a moment, but not yet.
I say that very gently to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), as many of his constituents work in exactly the sorts of manufacturing industries that I am describing. No doubt, like a number of my constituents, some of them work at Toyota. When Members see how these wonderful manufacturing businesses work—whether it is ceramics, cars, automotives, potteries or glass—they will understand the importance of frictionless trade. What that means in the real world is that, at Toyota in Burnaston, parts arrive on lorries, which have come through the tunnel and straight up the motorway, and within three hours they are on the assembly line. It is an astonishing and an incredible achievement that this country should be proud of. It is part of Margaret Thatcher’s legacy—
Anna Soubry
I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention in a moment.
It was Margaret Thatcher who, as a proud Conservative, championed free trade. I am a Tory. I believe in business. I believe in capitalism and in enterprise. I believe in our economy as it provides jobs and prosperity. It is indeed an engine of aspiration for so many of my constituents who want to see themselves going into apprenticeships at Rolls-Royce as much as they would like to go the finest universities.
Sir Edward Leigh
I knew Margaret Thatcher; I worked for Margaret Thatcher. My right hon. Friend ain’t no Margaret Thatcher.
Anna Soubry
I do not pretend to be able to walk in Margaret Thatcher’s boots, but I have read her speeches about the advantages of the single market. She was a huge champion—probably the biggest champion—of the single market. It was Margaret Thatcher who went over to Japan and promised the Japanese that our country would always stay in the single market. On that basis, Japanese business invested billions of pounds in this country.
My hon. Friend attacks me in a wholly unnecessary and really rather foolish way, but I hope that he will speak freely and honestly in our debate and give his assessment of what is facing our country if we do not get Brexit right. It is all well and good for Members to have their ideologically-driven, hard Brexit ideas when they are not able to face up to the reality of what they mean for people in my constituency and the rest of our country.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Anna Soubry
In a moment.
The reality, which is faced in the White Paper, is that if we do not deliver frictionless trade in the way in which companies such as Toyota need and demand, they will simply not be able to operate. Some 81% of Toyota cars produced at Burnaston are exported into the European Union. And before anybody says, “Well, there will be new markets”—those unicorns that our Government will be chasing in new deals—please understand how the modern manufacturing industry works. Companies such as Toyota already make cars in other parts of the world to satisfy and supply the local market.
Anna Soubry
I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough and then I will come down the row.
Nicky Morgan
Does not the intervention on my right hon. Friend made by our hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) show what is the matter with this Brexit debate? Rather than talking about the detail and the risk to thousands of jobs across the country in our manufacturing sector—the Conservative party has championed that sector since 2010—he prefers to trade insults and trade on personalities.
Anna Soubry
Here is a surprise: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend.
Anna Soubry
I said that I would go down the row first. In a moment gents; hang on.
Charlie Elphicke
I have been listening with great interest to my right hon. Friend’s speech. I am a former remainer and fellow believer in free enterprise, which was why I set out a detailed plan on how we can have frictionless trade using the World Trade Organisation trade facilitation agreement that was entered into in 2017.
My constituents have some questions that I would like to pose to my right hon. Friend. Why is it that so many lorries come in through Dover laden with goods yet so many return empty? Why is there a £100 billion trade surplus for the European Union? Why should we give the European Union access to our goods market but not insist on access to our financial services market after we leave the European Union?
Anna Soubry
I do not wish to be rude to my hon. Friend, but that really is the stuff of madness. Of course we need to export more, but here is the real question that he should be asking. At the moment, a lorry that comes in from the European Union through Dover will take, at the most, two minutes to go through. If it comes from outside the European Union, the process takes 20 minutes at the least, and at the most—and more typically—it takes two hours. How does that transpose to the manufacturing sector and to the Toyota workers outside Derby—some 3,000 people, with three to five times as many in the supply chains?
I say to my hon. Friend that this, Sir, is the real world. In the real world, when Toyota makes an order for car seats, they are delivered absolutely ready on to the production line within four hours of the order being placed. If we do not deliver frictionless trade, either through a customs union or some magical third way that the Prime Minister thinks she can deliver—good luck to her on that—thousands of jobs will go, and hon. Members sitting on the Government Benches, in private conversations, know that to be the case. What they have said in those private conversations is that the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs will be worth it to regain our country’s sovereignty—tell that to the people who voted leave in my constituency. Nobody voted to be poorer, and nobody voted leave on the basis that somebody with a gold-plated pension and inherited wealth would take their jobs away from them.
Sir Desmond Swayne
I have a very successful manufacturer in my constituency abiding by the very disciplines that my right hon. Friend has, rightly, been so effusive about. Imagine, then, my surprise when I discovered that the proprietor and chief executive of this organisation, Col-Tec—one Mike Bailey—was to be my opponent as the UKIP candidate in the New Forest West division.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I think the point that my right hon. Friend did not want to take is that there are plenty of businessmen who are in favour of leaving the European Union.
The point that I wanted to raise with my right hon. Friend is that her whole argument is passionately based on the fallacy that one cannot have just-in-time supply chains crossing international customs frontiers. In fact, that is the way that most of the rest of the world trades. At Toyota in her own constituency—I met Toyota last week—quite a substantial proportion of its componentry arrives from outside the European Union to be bolted on to its cars. She is putting up these completely false fears that just-in-time supply chains are threatened by trading across customs frontiers.
Anna Soubry
I have to say to my hon. Friend that that is absolute codswallop. When I went to Toyota, we were shown exactly the places where the parts had come from. For example, some parts had come from Japan. There was a special arrangement with Japan whereby the parts come into the factory and sit in a bonded warehouse. Those parts number less than 1% of the total. Toyota has 2.5 million parts coming into that factory, and the vast majority come from the European Union—it relies on frictionless trade.
With great respect to my hon. Friend, he is somebody who makes the case that we should be a member of the World Trade Organisation. Let us just get this one straight. If our country joins the World Trade Organisation—[Interruption.] Well, we are a member through our membership of the European Union. If we are a member of the WTO in our own right, we will have to abide by its rules, which say that every member must secure its borders—I repeat, must secure its borders. That does not just mean that our country, when we leave the European Union, must secure its borders, but that the European Union, whether it likes or not, must secure its borders. What does that mean? There will have to be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It is dishonest and disingenuous for people to stand up and make out that something other than that is the reality.
The White Paper faces up to Brexit reality, and that is what Conservative Members must now do. We have to face that reality, just like I have had to face the reality that we are leaving the European Union. Hon. Members have to do the right thing by their constituents and put trade and business at the heart of Brexit.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I want to go back to the point about enforcing our border. Some people say that, if we were trading under WTO rules, we would not need to have a border in Ireland, but under the WTO’s most-favoured-nation rules, if we did not enforce the border in Ireland, we would be in breach of our agreements with other parts of the world. We would have no right to say, “No border.” Furthermore, if Ireland did not enforce the border with the rest of the UK, it would be in breach of its obligations to the EU, and if the EU did not require Ireland to respect the border, it would be in breach of its obligations across the world. So I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point so clearly.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have heard exactly the same points from businesses in my community. I have heard the same points about the Northern Ireland-Ireland border, too. That is why I favour staying in a customs union. The White Paper is full of magical thinking, but the amendments tabled by some in the right hon. Lady’s party directly contradict what is in the White Paper, because what they really want is a reckless no deal Brexit in which we crash out, with all the damage that will cause.
Anna Soubry
I completely agree. I say to my Government that they are in grave danger of not just losing the plot but losing a considerable amount of support from the people of this country unless we get Brexit right. The people who put their names to those amendments—notably new clause 36 and amendment 73—did so not to be helpful to the Government and to support the White Paper. We know that from their public proclamations, in which they have tried to trash the White Paper.
I made it clear to the Whips and to—well, actually, to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, for whom I have a lot of time because he is a very good Minister, a very good man and a very good constituency MP. I say that because I have been to his constituency—
Anna Soubry
For the record, that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). If anyone else had said it, I would have been very rude. [Interruption.] Sorry. Scrub that; it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey)—ever the trouble maker.
This is really serious. I told the Minister that I would not press my amendments to a vote. That is not because I lack courage—in fact, given events, I would like to think I have a bit of courage. Some say I do not have a fear gene at all. Just to remind hon. Members, three people have received custodial sentences for the death threats I have received. I am getting a bit tired of being called a traitor. Certain people on these Benches support a newspaper that, disgracefully, had the temerity to suggest that the Prime Minister of our country might in some way have committed treason by the production of this White Paper. That is outrageous. Right hon. and hon. Members on these Benches really need a bit of a reality check, not just on Brexit but on the way this party is conducting itself and on who they choose to call their friends.
Let me return to why I will not press my amendments to a vote.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the right hon. Lady returns to the substance of her remarks, I just point out to her that she has already had 21 minutes of the debate, and—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Order. This is not a music hall. The right hon. Lady is perfectly in order—she has an awful lot of things to deal with and she has taken a lot of interventions—but I know that she will quite soon begin to come to a peroration.
Anna Soubry
By remarkable coincidence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am coming to the conclusion of my remarks. I want to explain why I will not press my amendments to a vote, as I indicated to the Minister last week. The reason is the production of the White Paper.
I will be very frank: the White Paper does not go as far as it should—it is silent on services, which make up 80% of our economy—but I welcome it because it absolutely marks that our Prime Minister understands the needs of British business, in particular manufacturing businesses, and is determined to do the right thing. She has come up with this third way. Whether she can achieve it remains to be seen, but I decided not to press my amendments to a vote because of my support for the White Paper and my desire to give that third way a chance.
Having done that, I believed, as a pragmatic, reasonable, moderate Conservative, that I had done the right thing by my Prime Minister and, as much as anything else, by my country. Imagine, therefore, my profound disappointment that the Government today, for reasons I can just about understand, decided to accept four amendments, two of which are not controversial but two of which—new clause 36 and amendment 73—seek to wreck and undermine this.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Is not one of the features of these two amendments the fact that they would not do what their proposers seek them to do? The fact that the Government have chosen to accept amendments that are unnecessary and useless shows that the only intention behind their tabling was malevolent? The fact that they are being maintained at the present time is also an act of malevolence towards the Government by the proposers.
Anna Soubry
I completely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. Members on the Government Front Bench, and indeed across the House, should be hanging their heads in shame. This is the stuff of complete madness. The only reason the Government have accepted the amendments is that they are frightened of around 40 Members of Parliament—the hard, no deal Brexiteers —who should have been seen off a long time ago. These people do not want a responsible Brexit; they want their version of Brexit. They do not even represent the people who actually voted to leave. The consequences are grave, and not just for this party, but for our country. One has to wonder who is in charge. Who is running Britain? Is it the Prime Minister, or is it my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)? I know where my money is at the moment.
Stephen Doughty
What has really been going on here is that some of these extreme individuals have been threatening the Government, trying to hold them hostage, and saying that they will vote against Third Reading and bring the Government down, to get these bizarre, contradictory amendments through.
Anna Soubry
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is disgraceful, because this White Paper is a genuine attempt by our Prime Minister to heal the divisions in our party, and indeed the divisions in our country, and take us to a smooth and sensible Brexit that delivers for everybody.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Government were guaranteed the support of the Labour party and the Scottish National party against these wrecking amendments, we could finally reveal what a tiny minority of the House of Commons is trying to hold us all to ransom over a reasonable deal with the European Union?
Anna Soubry
My right hon. and learned Friend is right, as ever.
The truth is that both main political parties are now in the grasp of the few who falsely claim to speak for the many. A lack of ability, or perhaps courage, the over-liking of the safety and sanctity of ministerial office or, frankly, just a quiet life, on whichever side of the House, and a guaranteed income for a loyal Back Bencher with a handsome majority, mean that our country is hurtling not just towards the extremes of British political life, but over the Brexit cliff, which the overwhelming majority of leavers did not vote for—indeed, they were promised the precise opposite.
The time has come for the nonsense to be stopped. The time has come for people to show courage and do the right thing by our country. We are leaving the European Union, but we have to leave in such a way that protects jobs and prosperity—and peace in Northern Ireland—for everybody in this country. It is time for people to put aside the ideology and the nonsenses that invariably come from not inhabiting the real world. Let us face up to reality, as this White Paper seeks to do, and reject these two ludicrous amendments that the Government have agreed to. In due course, let us wake up to the further reality: we will end up in the single market and the customs union; the only question is when.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) for the passion with which she has spoken. She spoke authentically about the care and attention that she has taken to look into the supply chain issues, the just-in-time delivery systems that are the foundation of modern manufacturing in our country. She was not taking an ideological view, which certain Conservative Members, who may guffaw at that, might take, but thinking about the economy: our constituents’ jobs and all the prosperity and tax revenues that pay for the vital public services that we need to keep this country going. The national health service, the education system, housing and local government all depend on a healthy, vibrant economy.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman misunderstands amendment 73. One of the other amendments, which the Government have also accepted, would stop them having a Henry VIII power for a new customs union. If a new customs union were to be introduced by legislation, amendment 73 could be brought in under that customs arrangement. It simply retains power for this House.
Mr Leslie
We have got the hon. Gentleman’s measure now. He used to be an entertaining curiosity, but no longer. He represents a major present threat to the future of our economy and our constituents’ jobs. He is trying to scupper our smooth frictionless arrangements for businesses that currently have to pay VAT but can do so because we treat it as a matter of dispatches and arrivals, rather than its having to be paid upfront. By deleting paragraph 14 of schedule 8, the hon. Gentleman would hole future VAT arrangements below the water line.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Are we not seeing here an insertion of further red lines when we have enough of them already?
Mr Leslie
Exactly. It would be sensible of the Government to read the runes and start thinking about where there is a consensus in Parliament for a positive way forward rather than constantly laying down or accepting more red lines, or caving in to threats from those who are very loud but represent a tiny minority viewpoint.
New clause 2 is really important because it would preserve our current role of participation in the EU VAT area. I hope hon. Members will see the purpose of that. I think we currently have 25 million customs declarations paying VAT at the border. That will potentially rise to 255 million. Imagine the bureaucracy, the cost of administration and the paperwork for our VAT system if those declarations also have to be made at the border. Amendment 73 would end up taking out our participation. I intended to raise this issue as a matter of debate, but perhaps I should press new clause 2 to a vote, because the EU VAT area is absolutely crucial to avoiding a hard border.
It is important that we pick out the problems with the Chequers arrangement. I understand that the Prime Minister is trying to find some sort of balance, but I am afraid to say that the notion of a facilitated customs arrangement just does not quite get us to where we need to be. I am delighted with the acceptance of how important a common rulebook for goods is to our country. That recognition of economic reality is important, but it is only one piece of the jigsaw that we need. For instance, we need to ensure that the 80% of our economy in the services sector is not completely abandoned and that we lose out as a result.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I would just like to reflect on how refreshing it is—it is probably what the majority of the country wants to see—that sensible people are working cross-party to try to find a way forward in this dreadful mess. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the Chequers arrangement. It is an opening bid to the EU, is it not, saying, “Okay, come back and tell us which pieces you are happy or unhappy with.”? I am interested in whether he knows Labour’s position on the wrecking amendments, specifically amendments 73 and 36. Will he and his party will be joining us in voting against them?
Mr Leslie
Well, I will certainly want to vote against amendment 73, but my hon. Friends will make their own remarks in their own time. I do not know what their intentions are, as I have not had a chance to hear from them. Intuitively, I doubt very much that my hon. Friends, knowing what the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is up to, knowing where the members of the ERG come from on the political spectrum—the hard right Brexit perspective—and knowing how important the economy is to the future of this country, will abstain on amendment 73.
Stephen Doughty
It is very clear, as my hon. Friend says, who those Members are working with and what their agenda is. They are working with the likes of Nigel Farage and others who would like to see us crash out, so that they can deregulate the economy and change it into a Singapore-style tax haven on the edge of Europe where they can pursue their right-wing fantasies.
Mr Leslie
Yes, indeed.
It is helpful if we view the two Bills we are considering today and tomorrow as a piece, as they interrelate with one another. Many of the amendments tabled for the Trade Bill tomorrow on a customs union are also on today’s amendment paper. I say gently to the Government, “Nice try with your facilitated customs arrangement, but it is not going to fly for a number of different reasons.” I urge the Chancellor and the Minister to stop putting down red lines. They will only find that they come back and embarrass them when they have to accept a customs union.
Let me quickly go into detail on why a customs union really will have to apply in this situation. There may be Conservative Members who agree with me on this point. The facilitated customs arrangement may well apply if we have a free trade agreement with the EU, but only a customs union gets rid of what is known as the rules of origin requirements—the local content thresholds needed to prove whether an FTA is in place to qualify for preferential tariff arrangements. Under a customs union, we do not have to have rules of origin checks. That is a massive advantage of the customs union.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
That is not actually correct. It is quite common in a free trade agreement to have what is known as an auto-pact, so that there can be frictionless arrangements, for example for the motor industry. The same could apply for aerospace.
Mr Leslie
There are certain manufactured goods where they have that, but across the piece of a whole economy we do not see a circumstance where rules of origin have been abolished in the way the hon. Gentleman describes. Rules of origin are really quite burdensome for manufacturers to prove. They have to count the content and document where components come from. They then have to lodge those documents as they cross the border. My point is that the facilitated customs arrangement, with its rules of origin requirements, will have friction at the border. For that reason, we are going to have to accept that a customs union is preferable.
Vicky Ford
On the rules of origin, the hon. Gentleman may wish to read the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention on rules of origin, which covers a broader area than just the customs union. It is possible to have agreement on rules of origin outside the customs union.
Mr Leslie
My experience is very different in terms of the information I have. If we look across the range of goods as a whole, there are problems with rules of origin outside the customs union.
The second problem with the facilitated customs arrangement is that it breaches article 3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade—GATT—which is part of the World Trade Organisation rules. Article 3 is the national treatment principle, which says that we should not treat imported goods unfairly relative to domestically produced goods. Because of the track and trace requirements in the facilitated customs arrangement architecture, we will have to treat imported goods differently to those produced and made in the UK.
The third problem is that if we want to make free trade agreements with the rest of the world, the Government are shooting themselves in the foot with the facilitated customs arrangement because article 24 of GATT states that we have to eliminate substantially all trade barriers between constituent trade authorities. If the UK is having to collect tariffs on behalf of the EU, that introduces a barrier that will have to fetter future free trade agreements. I do not particularly believe we can get better FTAs beyond the customs union; I think our leverage as part of the EU is superior, but on a technical level a facilitated customs arrangement, I am afraid to say, is just not going to wash.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
On the important issue of rules of origin, which my hon. Friend has just raised, we have heard the argument from some people is that it is not a problem. If it is not a problem, then why do the Government, in paragraph 23 of the White Paper, state that the UK is proposing
“no routine requirements for rules of origin between the UK and the EU”?
Mr Leslie
Exactly. Presumably the Government think they can negotiate on that between the UK and the EU bilaterally, but actually that is not the way that this works. Under the WTO arrangements, we have to make sure we have the same application of rules as we would in other arrangements around the world.
A customs union is not just preferable; it is the only realistic option. The idea that the European Union is going to say, “Fine, we’re happy with you splitting the four freedoms” is for the birds. That is not going to happen, especially as populism is running riot worldwide. The EU feels very firmly that it wants to defend the international rules-based system. It feels very firmly that the four freedoms of the single market and the customs union are integral to it. The idea that Switzerland provides an example, when it has endured decades of constant treaty negotiations year after year after year—that is not a model Britain should seek to parallel.
The idea that we should simply hope that by focusing on the withdrawal agreement we can secure our future is also a fallacy. The notion that we will be able just to staple on to the back of this arrangement, on a few sides of A4, political statements on our future relationship with the EU is deeply dangerous. We have to make sure that we settle these issues—I know the former Brexit Secretary agrees on this particular point. The idea that what is said on one side of exit day will necessarily be enforced on the other side of exit day is just not true. There is no legal enforceability to any warm words about our future relationship. These issues have to be set out at this particular stage.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is time we listen to the people who run businesses, rather than sit in our comfortable seats telling people what to do?
Mr Leslie
Yes, and the problem we have had is that ideology and populism have been running this country for the last few years. We need to stop that and assert common-sense economic reality much more. As the right hon. Member for Broxtowe was saying in her speech, this transcends the political parties. This is not a time to be playing party political games of advantage. Our country is absolutely at stake here.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to the House that a great many people want to speak. We have three hours of debate left, but we cannot continue with speeches of the length that we have had so far, although there is nothing wrong with what any hon. Members have done. We will therefore start with a time limit of 12 minutes.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
For the convenience of members of the Gallery, I should start by saying that this is not a resignation statement—that was last week. This week is a return to my normal business, as an ordinary Back Bencher carrying out the scrutiny of business. I thought that it would be rather mundane until I walked into what appears to be this rhetorical firefight that we have had so far in the debate.
Before I come back to that, the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill and its partner, the Trade Bill coming tomorrow, are vital pieces of legislation. In the newspapers at the weekend, I read that some people were so cross with the White Paper that they were proposing to vote against this. Well, I do not think that they can be much more cross than I am with the White Paper, but I urge them not to vote against it. These are vital pieces of legislation and they are necessary, whether we have the Government’s White Paper policy, my old White Paper policy, the FTA that some have talked about or indeed even the World Trade Organisation outcome. In every single case, we need these Bills and therefore I will be supporting them.
I want to speak directly to the new clause proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I will do so without impugning anybody’s motives or questioning whether somebody is acting in the national interest or not and I will not be firing off any gibes. I am not quite sure who she was referring to when she talked about having an excessive attachment to public office, but I do not think it was me. The simple truth is that this is a vitally important argument. It is central to the whole question of the economic aspect of Brexit—Brexit is not just economic; it is democratic as well, but it is central to that—and I will put to one side in my arguments the fact that being out of the customs union was in the Conservative party’s manifesto and therefore, in theory at least, one we are committed to.
The arguments go right to the heart of the principal issues. The proponents of the new clauses have a clear belief in the national economic interest, but they clearly believe that being outside the customs union will lead to a precipitate loss of trade and that the loss of the ability to make trade deals matters less than that potential loss of trade. That is the core of the argument. It is pretty straightforward in that respect.
Let us look at some facts. Back in 1999, the United Kingdom—we are talking about the customs union, so this is about goods—was exporting 60% of its goods to the European Union and 40% to the rest of the world. Since then, that has gone down by approximately 1% per annum, so it is now about 45% to the European Union and the rest to the rest of the world. Pretty much by the end of this decade, it is likely to be 60:40 in favour of the rest of the world, so because it takes away the right to our own commercial policy, the prospect of staying inside the customs union favours the shrinking minority of our trade over the expanding, fast-growing majority of that trade. That is the very simple, fundamental, initial point that we should take on board. It also presumes that being outside the customs union will significantly damage trade because there will be friction at the border.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
One of the most remarkable features of the last 20 years has been the globalised economy and the very rapid growth and emergence of major new markets, so inevitably the balance of our trade was going to grow with them and decline with the European Union. We want to remain as attractive to investors from the new economies as to the old. It does us no advantage in our dealings with China, Brazil and India to damage the value of our access to the European market. Outside events have altered this balance; it is not a failing of our EU arrangements.
Mr Davis
My right hon. and learned Friend was being uncharacteristically inattentive, because that is exactly what I said: because of the growth in world trade, that is what is going on. He is exactly right that we should take a great interest in the fast growth in world trade because we are best placed, probably of most countries in the world, to take the most advantage of that. Also within his comment was the presumption, which I was about to address, that friction in our trade with the European Union—low friction, but friction—will cause enormous damage.
John Redwood
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that many successful manufacturing businesses in Britain today have these just-in-time supply chains bringing in large quantities of raw material and component from outside the EU through a system of authorised economic operators, electronic manifests and the settlement of any bills not at the port? There are not people sitting in boxes in the port taking the money.
Mr Davis
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. It is an issue that I will return to in a second, but before I do I want to make a point about friction. The presumption in all this is that we have a magical, frictionless system at the moment. Actually, we will have seen on our television screens that that is not true. This entire House will have watched Operation Stack in progress over various years. Operation Stack is what we do when one of the ports gets locked up for one reason or another—a strike in France or whatever. It has been operated 74 times in 20 years. In 2015, it took up 31 days of friction, and our businesses—the just-in-time businesses and the perishable goods businesses—all coped with it, so let us not frighten ourselves in doing this negotiation. Nobody wants it and nobody likes it, but they cope with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) pointed out that with World Trade Organisation facilitation, we will actually minimise the friction on trade through these ports, as was reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood).
Secondly, while people understandably focus on some of the pressure points—most particularly Dover, which we heard about a second ago—they forget that there is strong competition between the ports on the North sea and the ports on the channel. Zeebrugge, Antwerp and Rotterdam all want to increase their throughput at the cost of the Calais-Dover crossing. They are already preparing for increases in throughput in their own areas when we are outside the EU and preparing for the increase in work—because there will be some increase in work—but again, as my right hon. Friend said, it will not happen at the border. It will happen before they get there or after they pass through it, so our so-called dependency on French ports will turn out to be illusory.
Thirdly, in support of the arguments that any friction at the border is unacceptable we hear lots of talk about supply chains. We had it from my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe who proposed this new clause. The simple truth is that this ignores the fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) pointed out, that lots of international supply chain operations operate across borders where there are customs, tariff and currency arrangements. I happen to know one of them very well, because I operated a business across just such a border myself—between Canada and the USA. [Hon. Members: “Thirty years ago.”] I went back last year.
Mr Davis
No, I will not give way.
I went back last year to look at it again, and yes it was 15-year-old technology. It could be better now; it could be faster. What happens in Detroit, the centre of the American motor industry? In Ontario, across a very difficult and constrained border, tougher than Dover, there is an entire industry supplying parts, components and engines for that motor car industry. It operates across a border that has tariffs on it, too.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Davis
No, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. I am short of time.
The simple truth is they operate even where there are tariffs, and we are proposing a non-tariff arrangement—there would be no tariffs here; the primary concerns will not be the collection money but other things.
Mr Davis
No, if my right hon. Friend will forgive me.
The issues that remain at the border will depend on the customs policy we decide on, which very clearly will alter how that border operates. It will include rules of origin, as has already been pointed out; tariff-paid status, if we are in the future customs arrangement, which is more difficult than rules of origin; and regulatory compliance. None requires action at the border. All can be dealt with by electronic pre-notification or pre or post-audit at either origin or destination.
Without doubt, the most difficult issue in the negotiations as they relate to borders has been Northern Ireland. There is no way, however, that a UK Government are ever going to install a hard border in Northern Ireland—that is as plain as a pikestaff. No UK Government would risk the peace process, which has been going on for decades. Neither would the Irish Government. I cannot imagine in a century that an Irish Government would do that either. What many people forget, however, are that there is already a border there—there is a currency border, a VAT border, an excise border, and there are other tax borders. They are operated north and south of the border by the UK and the Irish tax and customs collection organisations, operating together using intelligence- led intervention.
Much is made of the 300 border crossings. One of the outstanding issues with being outside the customs union is, as somebody said, the issue of rules of origin, but in Northern Ireland, while there may be 300 border crossings, there are only six ports. Rest-of-world imports can actually be surveilled and controlled very straightforwardly. This issue, which has become much more difficult since it was politicised—it was actually working quite well in the negotiations before it was politicised—is eminently soluble, by technical means and co-operation between the two states.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
If what the right hon. Gentleman says about the border is so, why was he part of a Government that agreed to the backstop last December?
Mr Davis
They did not agree to the backstop; they agreed to the joint report that talked about full alignment. [Interruption.] Does the hon. and learned Lady want to listen to the answer? She will remember me standing at the Dispatch Box saying that we interpreted full alignment as outcome alignment and relating directly to the issues in the north-south strands—principally, agriculture, transport, and environment as it applies to the single electricity market. Those are the primary strands, and they are eminently soluble, by arrangements that already exist in Northern Ireland—for example, the carve-out on environmental legislation. It is a very straightforward issue, but it has been blown up into something else by the other side of the negotiations.
The risk and costs of having a customs border are less than is being claimed, and what we would give up to join a customs union is much more than is imagined. The EU is a slow and not very effective negotiator of free trade agreements. We keep hearing about its size and negotiating power, but the fact that it represents 28 different countries means it comes up with sub-optimal outcomes all the time, and actually we are the country that does least well out of the EU’s free trade agreements. They almost never involve services, for example, which are our primary trade. The EU is a slow and not very effective negotiator of trade deals.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
It is interesting to follow the former Brexit Secretary and to reflect on the speech he has just given. It explained why he resigned from the Government but, in the end, it just clashes with reality—that is the unfortunate detail of the evidence he has put to the House today.
I shall speak in support of new clause 1, but also to my new clause 6 and amendment 9, which relate to conducting an impact assessment on the effect of leaving the common external tariff. I shall also speak against amendment 73 and new clause 36. We have heard why the former Brexit Secretary believes that any kind of customs union would somehow be bad for Britain and why we would be better off without it, and I will first address the fallacies in his argument. He was extraordinarily dismissive of the impact of checks at the border and of delays and additional costs, particularly for manufacturers and just-in-time production.
I make no bones about the fact that I am speaking strongly in support of manufacturing industry in my constituency. I will resist the temptation to go off on a tangent about Haribo and the Starmix I am sometimes allowed to test when I go to visit, but people there do tell me how important it is that they can bring ingredients to and fro smoothly across the border and talk about the impact of such delays.
Anna Soubry
Did the right hon. Lady notice that there was no detail about the reality of the America-Canada border, which took 10 years to construct, cost £10 billion, deals with facial recognition and involves 100 companies in the automotive sector of Detroit and nothing more? Does she think that such a model would not provide the frictionless trade that our manufacturing sector needs?
Yvette Cooper
I completely agree with the right hon. Lady. The former Brexit Secretary seems to be arguing that because companies trade across borders that involve customs checks, we should rip up our customs-free borders. He is saying that because those trades take place, it is okay somehow to add costs to our trading process. Why on earth would we do that? Why on earth would we add burdens to businesses that do not face them at the moment? Why on earth would we make the process difficult and more costly for them? It is not that we think all trade will stop—of course it will not—but the point is that that trade will become more costly and burdensome, and our businesses and manufacturers will be at a disadvantage compared with their European neighbours and competitors. That is unfair on our manufacturers, which we in this House should be standing up for. I certainly believe in standing up for Yorkshire manufacturing.
The former Brexit Secretary also seemed to be arguing that, because we coped with Operation Stack before, let us have more delays again. Yes, we can cope, but Operation Stack cost businesses coping with those long delays a fortune.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady give some consideration to supporting our new clause 36, which will become a key piece of legislation if the UK is to operate proper trade defences? She mentioned manufacturing, and I note that many Labour Members have constituencies where workers may depend on the UK’s having good trade defences. Under the facilitated customs arrangement, that would not be possible without new clause 36.
Yvette Cooper
Let me just deal with new clause 36. If the Government are saying that they will accept it, I do not understand how that does not rip a hole right through their White Paper. New clause 36 explicitly states that we cannot collect customs and excise duties at the border on behalf of another country unless that country is going to do the same for us, but the White Paper states:
“However, the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border for goods intended for the UK.”
That is the opposite of what is said in new clause 36. Have the Government ripped up their own White Paper in the space of a couple of days? This is a chaotic approach to a matter that is so serious, and it shows a ridiculous wobbling in the face of a small group of people who I do not believe speak for the majority in this country.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
That phrase in the White Paper describes a perfectly sensible arrangement. If we adopt the new clause, 27 other countries will face the prospect of searching for new technology and setting up their own bureaucratic arrangements to accommodate the Brexiteers in my party. We urgently need these EU negotiations to start with partners who can rely on us to stick to a consistent line, and it could be very damaging to change the basic position on such an important matter within one week.
Yvette Cooper
I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right on two counts. First, I think that this inconsistency and buckling in the face of objections from what I consider to be an unrepresentative group is the wrong approach. Secondly, I think that these customs arrangements are immensely important.
Yvette Cooper
No, I will not, because there is a time limit and I want to finish my speech early so that others can contribute.
Members who oppose any form of customs union are underestimating the significance of rules of origin checks which, according to the Government’s own analysis, can burden businesses with additional costs amounting to between 4% and 15%.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Why would any company bother to carry out expensive rules of origin checks if paying the tariff, which might be as little as 2%, would be much cheaper? It is as simple as that.
Yvette Cooper
That is really flipped logic. The hon. Gentleman is effectively saying, “They do not have to do the checks because they can all just pay the tariffs.” Why on earth are we going through this whole process in the first place if all we are going to get is a tiny reduction in tariffs that no one will take advantage of in order to get any benefits?
Mr David Davis
The logic is actually very simple. Empirical evidence shows that in international trade, companies seek to claim their rebates and do what is necessary to avoid tariffs when a tariff is lower than 3%, not when it is above. What that tells us is that the cost of rules of origin administration is less than 3%. Companies are rational operators. The numbers that the right hon. Lady cited from a supposed Government study were wrong.
Yvette Cooper
I would caution the right hon. Gentleman against dismissing the rules of origin checks. There is a huge worry about the burden that they will impose on small businesses in particular. There is a big difference between large and small businesses in this regard. It might be worth large businesses claiming the money back because they can set up systems to do so, but for small businesses the process can be devastating. I am thinking particularly of the huge number of small businesses that have not yet traded outside the EU and for which rules of origin will be a new burden.
Why on earth would we want to add these additional burdens and checks on businesses that have not faced them before? I find myself in a very strange position. I, as a Labour MP, am arguing far more strongly and passionately against these additional burdens on businesses than those on the hard right of the Conservative party, who ought to be arguing against such burdens.
Wera Hobhouse
Surely rules of origin checks are about not only tariffs, but environmental protection, for example. It is not just about the money; it is about where the products have come from, how they were produced and whether they conform with what we believe in.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Lady is right. We need to address the wider issues relating to friction at the border as well.
Let me say something about the Government’s facilitated customs arrangement. I understand what Ministers are trying to do and that they are trying to square a circle. They are trying to pull us out of the common external tariff without paying any of the penalties of being outside it. I think that that is a leap of faith—it is implausible. I think that there are huge questions about whether such an arrangement is deliverable and whether it would be robust enough for the EU ever to sign up for it.
The Government are expecting that there will be sufficiently robust procedures for tariffs to be collected at the border for widgets coming in from the United States or other countries, and therefore no checks—no spot checks; no additional checks—on whether forms are being filled in correctly and accurately, on whether there is fraud and on whether there is an incentive for companies to fill in the forms in respect of one direction but then actually to move the goods in another. That is significant, because the European Commission is currently taking action to recover what it believes is €2 billion of under-claimed customs duties as a result of the UK’s failure to crack down on Chinese clothing importers’ customs fraud. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that, the point is that the European Commission and EU member states do not have confidence in our customs arrangements at the moment—never mind our asking them to join in a huge leap of faith with their agreeing to our future facilitated customs arrangement. The Government are relying on some whizzy wonderful new technology, and while I hope that that will arrive very quickly, there are serious questions about how long that will take and what the consequences will be.
My new clause 6 calls for a proper impact assessment of the consequences of being outside the common external tariff. I still cannot believe that that has not been done. I cannot believe that there has been no serious assessment of the fantasy future trade deals that will somehow make us better off, or of the additional burdens that will result from being outside the common external tariff, which will make us worse off.
Let me now say something about amendment 73, which I think is one of the most destructive measures tabled by some of the hard-right Conservatives in the European Research Group. It would remove from the Bill any provisions that would be needed for a customs union. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who chairs the ERG, has said that that is okay because there will be a future vote. Why should there be a future vote? Why should we not vote now? I think that we should have a customs union, so let us have that vote now, rather than voting to remove the provisions from the Bill. Why on earth, for the sake of manufacturing, would we ditch those customs provisions? The ERG wants to remove the possibility of a customs union from the Bill.
I am astonished that Ministers want to accept that proposal. It is deeply destructive, and it would actually make it harder for the Government to secure the customs arrangements that we need. It means that if their facilitated customs arrangement does not work, the fall-back position will be no customs deal at all, which would be deeply damaging for our manufacturers.
I hope that our Front Benchers will also vote against this deeply damaging ERG amendment because I do not see how we can tolerate the damage that the hard right of the Conservative party wants to do to our manufacturing industry. We need to be the party that will stand up for manufacturing industry and ensure that our manufacturers can get the best possible deal as part of the Brexit process. We owe it to them to do that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) will be the last Member to speak under the 12-minute limit. By how much the subsequent limit will have to be lowered is very much dependent on the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you for calling me. You may be disbelieving, but I assure you that I will do my best to speak for fewer than 12 minutes, so I shall be rather more pithy than usual.
For the last 40 years, we have achieved some remarkable transformations in the British economy. We have made ourselves one of the most attractive economies in the world for inward investment and developed an extremely competitive modern economy in both goods and services. That is not entirely attributable to the single market and the customs union, but they played a very large part. The UK is regarded by many of the great firms that invest in this country as the most business-friendly member of the EU and the most attractive place to invest in a way that gives absolutely unfettered access to the largest developed international free trade area in the world. I personally have never understood why we are seeking to detract from that. In the referendum campaign, absolutely nobody made a major feature anywhere of saying that we should withdraw from these arrangements, and certainly nobody advocated the virtues of putting in place at our ports and borders customs checks, customs procedures, tariffs, regulatory divergence and all the things that cause cost.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
The key concern for me is that we seem to be separating EU trade and non-EU trade, but is it not the case that so much of our non-EU exports are from foreign-owned businesses that invest in this country for export precisely because of the attraction of the single market and so on?
Mr Clarke
I agree and that is why I tabled, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), new clause 12 on a customs union. I have taken the view that, while I can see nothing wrong with that amendment, I am prepared to try to get us out of this political chaos by giving the Government White Paper a try. It is attempting to reach precisely the objectives I am arguing for: frictionless trade, with none of these procedures at the border. I cannot see what is wrong with a customs union. If anyone calls a vote on that, I shall abstain. I do not vote against amendments that I plainly agree with and that I have tabled. If a facilitated customs arrangement can be devised which achieves the same, good luck. What is most important is that, now we have the White Paper, we agree with our partners in the EU that we now negotiate on this. We have wasted two years and are facing laughable suggestions that we are going to solve all the problems now in the next three months, or possibly by Christmas if that slips. That is absolutely ludicrous. That is the uncertainty that is racking business and anybody in the country with an interest in our economic future.
Now we have actually got quite a large majority of the Cabinet to agree on this. I never thought the Cabinet we had was ever capable of agreeing on anything on this subject because of the sincerely held, completely opposite views on virtually every aspect of it. We now have most of the Cabinet behind it. If we give them a chance, lots of developments will take place. As compromise takes place, with any luck, people who actually understand the subject will be allowed to try to come up with some workable version of this that achieves the essential objectives.
I am afraid the debate that the public are listening to infuriates them as it is all about personalities. Most sensible members of the public do not have the faintest idea what we are talking about because, throughout the entire debate, no one has ever given a proper explanation to the country of what a customs union or a single market even are and what certificates of origin involve. That is inevitable. We have never debated these things before, but we owe it to the public to have a slightly more sensible debate in future.
Half the arguments used in the general debate do not understand what a trade agreement is with any other country. As things stand, if we leave with no deal, we will be the only developed country in the world that does not have a trade agreement with any other country, because it is not going to be easy to roll over all the other agreements we have with other countries, which are based on the EU. We have driven the EU to achieve all those agreements. I agree that there are problems with 28 member states negotiating, but the problems with America are far worse. All the Americans want to do is export food to us; they will not open up their public procurement or their service industries.
Mr Clarke
I cannot give way.
Some people want us to give up the hated European rules on animal welfare and food standards and bind ourselves to the lower American rules on food standards. So Congress—Washington—will be telling us what our standards are in those areas in future and we will be excluded from European markets and have to have a hard border with Northern Ireland and with the continent. Anyone listening to some of the opponents of the EU would think that other trade agreements simply let us have all the advantages with no obligations. All trade agreements involve mutual agreements on regulation, standards, health and safety, welfare and all the other relevant things that the parties mutually bind themselves to accept. There is not a country in the world that would accept a trade agreement of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) seems to be describing when he warms to the subject.
These are hugely important subjects, but for the past week, we have been debating them in the national debate in the most farcical and chaotic way that I can remember in my political career. The outcome is hugely important. If, one week after the Government set out a policy that I personally was prepared to give a fair wind to, I find that they are going to accept proposals such as amendment 73 and new clause 36, which promptly change that policy in a quite ridiculous way, I shall despair. The Government have only to vote against those new clauses and amendments; I am absolutely certain that the Opposition parties would not be able to think of a sensible reason why they should help my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset and others to get a majority in this House. We can demonstrate that they are a tiny handful of people, and their arguments are most certainly not in the national interest.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The new time limit will have to be no more than eight minutes.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I hope that the penny is now dropping among those who inflicted the EU referendum and the subsequent chaos on the country as to precisely what damage this Tory farce is doing to our standing in the world and to our economy. We are two years on, yet no real progress has been made. Tory rivalries, leadership ambitions and factionalism are making this country a laughing stock, and Tory Members should be ashamed. I am sorry to say that Labour Front Benchers also often contribute to the farce.
I want to speak in favour of accepting new clauses 1 and 12 if they are pushed to a vote, and to speak against new clause 36, which is clearly a wrecking amendment. I hope that, when the Minister responds, he is able to explain why new clause 36 does not drive a coach and horses through the Chequers agreement. Everyone in the House knows that it does, but Ministers appear to be pretending that it does not. I commend the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is no longer in her place, for the anger and passion that she brought to the debate, and for starting to set out the consequences of Brexit. So far, the debate has been rather short on consequences. There has been a lot about aspirations, ambition, ideology and speculation, but rather little about the consequences of Brexit. Some Government Members pretend that Brexit will have no impact on the UK economy. Others are more honest, including the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who has just left his place—
Tom Brake
I am sorry—the hon. Gentleman is present. He was more honest. I hope that he does not feel that I am misinterpreting him, but I listened carefully to him, as I hope others did, when he spoke on the “Today” programme on Radio 4 this morning, and I think that what he was doing, perhaps paraphrasing our outgoing Foreign Secretary, was to say, “F*** business”. He was saying that all businesses care about are profits, but I think they care about whether they are able to do the job they are required to do and provide the jobs in this country.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Unlike probably the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members, I actually used to work in manufacturing industry. I worked for the Ford Motor Company, and I also used to invest in manufacturing businesses. It really is a bit rich when people who know next to nothing about manufacturing lecture those of us who have been in business on the things we know about. Does the right hon. Gentleman dismiss the views of people such as Sir James Dyson and J. C. Bamford and the many other manufacturers who wanted to leave the European Union when we had the referendum?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to hear that I also worked in business before I came into Parliament. I worked for manufacturing businesses, among others. He mentions the two businesses which he in fact can mention because they are in favour of coming out of the European Union. We have heard rather a lot about those two businesses. One has of course relocated most of its production to China, so I am not sure it is particularly well positioned to talk about these things—
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 36, tabled in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members. I want to be clear that a strong deal that delivers a new equal partnership between the UK and the EU based on co-operation to advance mutual interests while respecting the sovereignty of this country is of course in everyone’s interests. This is also a golden opportunity for our country to become a free and independent nation, setting up its own laws and in control of its own destiny. I do not think that anyone in this House would disagree with that. We understand that the Government are engaged in the negotiating process and that all negotiations require a degree of give and take. There are of course certain red lines that cannot be crossed, as is being made clear in the debates that we are having right now and in the proposals that we are taking to the European Union.
New clause 36 cements into legislation the principle of reciprocity. It is clear and unambiguous. It was disappointing to see that the White Paper did not commit to that principle. The proposal in the White Paper does not deliver an equal partnership. It delivers one that does not put us on a level playing field. Because it states that
“the EU would need to be confident that goods cannot enter its customs territory without the correct tariff and trade policy being applied”,
we would effectively adopt much of that policy and collect tariffs on behalf of the EU.
However, the White Paper then states that
“the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border for goods intended for the UK.”
We are therefore being asked to pass legislation that would mean that while the Government can agree with the EU to collect taxes for it and provide assurances about goods entering the UK that are heading to the EU, we would not expect the same arrangements to be provided by the EU in return. Why are we planning to give the EU assurances and confidence that we do not expect in return?
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether it is her view that new clause 36 conflicts or is in line with Government policy, as per the White Paper published last week?
Priti Patel
I just made the point that it was disappointing that the principle of reciprocity was not in the White Paper. My hon. Friend has already heard me say that I want an equal partnership, but what has been proposed is not equal. It is yet another compromise with nothing in return.
The Government have the chance to address that by backing new clause 36. The EU would then know that it cannot attempt to steamroller the Government on this issue in the negotiations and that if it wants to benefit from the UK collecting its tariffs, it needs to adopt a similar reciprocal arrangement.
Thus far, the Government have negotiated in good faith with the EU. We have been open, transparent and have already made many compromises and concessions, which is only right and fair. Within a week of taking office, the Prime Minister gave up our turn to the hold the EU presidency in the second half of 2017 as a gesture of goodwill. We offered a guarantee on citizens’ rights as early as possible, but the EU would not accept it. We have offered £40 billion of British taxpayers’ money, yet the trade deal that would benefit this country and the EU has been blocked by EU officials, who are, quite frankly, not engaging with us.
As we progress to the next stage of the negotiations on the future of the UK-EU relationship, Britain needs to be an equal partner with the EU, not its tax collector. New clause 36 would ensure that genuine reciprocal arrangements are established and would put it into law that the UK will not be part of an EU VAT regime and that Northern Ireland will be treated the same as the rest of the UK. We propose putting into law as a safeguard what the Government have said they want.
The public want to know that their political leaders will stay true to the promise made to them that Brexit means Brexit and that we are putting plans in place for our nation’s economic and political renewal, so the Government need to have the desire to modify their proposals and listen to the public.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Lady used commendable brevity, upon which I congratulate her.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). We sit on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs together and agree on much of its work. However, I am afraid that we agree on nothing when it comes to Brexit, and we have those battles in the Committee.
It is unfortunate that we have been left here this evening with a set of four amendments from the group of Conservative rebels who want to take us off a cliff edge. That is what the amendments are designed to do. We have unconfirmed reports that the Government may accept the amendments. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will nod to indicate that he will accept them, but if he does, I hope he has a match or a lighter in his pocket, because he would do just as well to set the Chequers agreement alight, given the consequences.
On top of all that, the former Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), must now regret leaving the Government, given that after threatening to resign five times, he finally went through with it by resigning following the Chequers agreement, which is just about to be ripped up by his own Front-Bench team and replaced with a much more hard-line position that will take us off the cliff with a hard Brexit. If he had only stayed on a few more days, he may have been able to see through the proposals that he started.
Ian Murray
I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, given that I mentioned him.
Ian Murray
I am delighted to hear that he would have resigned regardless, but he must surely have some regret. Perhaps we should be glad that he resigned, given that he stood up in this Chamber, as a former Secretary of State, and tried to persuade the House that Operation Stack and having trucks and lorries queued up at our ports was positive for the country. I have never known a former Secretary of State to look at something like Operation Stack, which would be a tragedy for our economy had it continued for much longer, and turn it into a positive. If that is the kind of argument he is offering to this House and to the country, we should ensure that we vote down most of these amendments.
I find it extraordinary that after going through this process—these debates give me déjà vu—we are still hearing arguments about the customs union and the single market. The Government managed to botch together what is now called the Chequers agreement and now, a week away from this Parliament adjourning for the summer recess, they have completely torn it apart by again pandering, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said, to 30 or 40 people on the hard right of the Conservative party. Those people would be being much more honest if they just stood up and said that they want the cliff-edge hard Brexit, rather than tabling amendments that drive a coach and horses through the agreement that the Government managed to reach.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that the 163 independent members of the WTO are somehow teetering on a cliff edge or doing something rather odd? Are they not just normal trading nations that trade freely with each other? I find his “cliff edge” statement rather peculiar, because it does not treat the facts.
Ian Murray
I will tell the hon. Gentleman who is teetering on the cliff edge: the 10,000 or 12,000 people in my constituency who work in the financial services sector. The advice and analysis that we have had from the hon. Gentleman’s own Government’s Treasury is that staying in the customs union and the single market is the least worst option, and that the WTO route that he suggests would leave this country teetering on the edge of a GDP reduction of somewhere between 9% and 16%, depending on the part of the country. If that is a positive argument for taking us out of the EU, the country needs to be given a people’s vote on whether we are going down the right track.
The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) moved new clause 1. She did not really mention new clause 12, but it presents a customs union option that could provide a platform to unite the vast majority of this House. When the Division bell rings for the votes on new clause 36 and amendment 73, I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe that we should all go into the Lobby against them to show how many people in this House actually want to protect this country’s future prosperity and how many want to take away any future prosperity for their own narrow ideological needs. I say to my own Front-Bench team that when the Division bell rings I hope Labour votes against those amendments and makes a stand against what the hard-line right-wing Brexiteers are trying to do to our country.
There is absolutely no way we can achieve frictionless trade—what the Government want us to try to achieve—while putting in place policies that set hurdles in front of it. The amendments would mean no VAT alignment, but if there is no VAT alignment, there is no backstop. If there is no backstop, there is no withdrawal agreement. If there is no withdrawal agreement, we have to have a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. If that is the aspiration behind some of these amendments, we will in the future have to take a long hard look back at this point, when we are about to inflict the single largest act of self-harm to this country, to see what people were actually trying to achieve. The introductory remarks of the right hon. Member for Broxtowe on new clause 1 sum that situation up. She was attacked with pretty disgraceful remarks from some in her own party, but she was merely trying to put forward an argument that would prevent this country from doing economic damage to itself. What a remarkable thing to happen.
We have two Bills in front of us this week—tonight’s Bill and the Trade Bill tomorrow—and all the Government have to do is keep the customs union and the single market on the negotiating table. New clause 12 does not mean that the Government have to implement anything; it just asks them to keep the proposal on the table. That is what would be in this country’s best interests. I agree with the right hon. Member for Broxtowe that this Minister is one of the best in the Government. I disagree with the vast majority of things that he does, but he is courteous, intelligent and always answers questions in the best way possible. He cannot honestly be sitting there this evening ready to accept the four amendments thinking that that would be in the best interests not only of the country, but of the Chequers agreement that the Prime Minister managed to cobble together last Friday. We need Government Front Benchers with a bit of backbone to stand up for the interests of this country. By the time we go into the Division Lobby very late on Tuesday night to pass the Trade Bill—after the customs Bill before us has been passed—Government Front Benchers could then say that they have stood up to the hard right of this country and stopped economic Armageddon, and that they have done the right thing.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 37, which is in my name and those of my right hon and hon. Friends. I will press the new clause at the appropriate time. It would make it
“unlawful for Her Majesty’s Government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain.”
The purpose is simple: it is to secure the future of the United Kingdom. I speak as a proud Unionist and a friend of Northern Ireland. I have had the honour of working closely with people across Northern Ireland, having been Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for seven years and, before that, a shadow Northern Ireland Minister for five years. Interestingly, I also co-chaired the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly for some five years. We have a lot to fight for in Northern Ireland.
This new clause would provide a guarantee that shows we value the Union and recognise the importance of strengthening it, but also acknowledge the importance and the value of our most important trading arrangement, the UK internal market. Above all, it would contribute to upholding the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and safeguard the Union for the future.
New clause 37 reinforces a view that I am confident is shared on both sides of the House, which is that we cannot accept a deal that would allow Northern Ireland to be considered a separate customs territory from Great Britain. I recognise that this is the view the Prime Minister has put at the forefront of our negotiations.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Will the hon. Gentleman reiterate the point that new clause 37 simply underlines and reaffirms what the Prime Minister has said from the Dispatch Box on four separate occasions? The hon. Gentleman is right to seek to nail this into the Bill because we might not always have the luxury of having a Unionist Prime Minister.
Mr Robertson
Of course I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I hope we always do have a Unionist Prime Minister. Many of us will be working towards that end for many, many years.
The Prime Minister said in December
“the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, will leave the EU customs union and the EU single market. Nothing in the agreement I have reached alters that fundamental fact.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 27.]
If nothing has changed, I am confident—and I understand it is the case—that the Government will support this amendment.
During the past two years, we have had many polarising debates on our withdrawal from the European Union, but this amendment is straightforward and should be supported by anyone who values and believes in the Union. This is not a matter of leave or remain; it is about protecting the Union and ensuring that any deal we secure with the European Union upholds the constitutional integrity of the UK.
As well as protecting Northern Ireland’s constitutional position in the UK, new clause 37 is also about protecting the economy of Northern Ireland by securing our most important single market, the UK itself. There are no absolute figures, but estimates from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency suggest that external sales of goods and services between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK were worth £14 billion in 2016, which represents approximately 58% of Northern Ireland’s total external sales. To jeopardise that by subjecting Northern Ireland to extra border arrangements, effectively down the Irish sea, would be foolish.
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister rightly rejected the European Commission’s proposed version of the backstop, which would have treated Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister has said a number of times, no UK Prime Minister could ever agree to it. I understand that is still the Government’s view.
New clause 37 does not look to tie the Government’s hands. Rather, it will galvanise the Government’s position on this issue and signal to the people of Northern Ireland that they will not be left behind or left out. The Irish border is being used as a red herring by the European Union. As the Prime Minister has agreed on a number of occasions, we cannot know what arrangements, if any, will be needed on the border until we know the details of any deal with the European Union. To think the opposite of that is to put the cart before the horse.
Her Majesty’s Government, the Irish Government and politicians of all colours in Northern Ireland have said that they do not want to see a hard border in Ireland. When we say “hard border,” we are not talking about troops being stationed along the border—that is not going to happen. Nor will whatever arrangements we reach with the EU provoke violence along the border—those years have surely gone.
What will happen, though, is what has been happening for a very long time. The two jurisdictions already have different laws, different currencies, different VAT rates, different levels of corporation tax, different fuel duties, different levels of tourism tax and different levels of air passenger duty, yet trade takes place. People cross the border each day, with some people crossing several times a day. Some checks are carried out at various places in the north and south, which is how it will continue to be, without the disruption to trade and to everyday life that some people predict.
There is, therefore, no need for discussions about the border in Ireland to hold up the wider trade talks with the European Union, nor is there any need to threaten Northern Ireland’s position within the UK or Northern Ireland’s economy during these talks. New clause 37 will ensure that will not be the case.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the backstop proposals for Northern Ireland are something no Prime Minister of the United Kingdom could ever agree to, and this new clause will enshrine that policy in law.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I support all those who have been arguing for continued membership of the customs union, and therefore I support new clause 1. It is clear from everything we have heard today that, if we are to avoid serious economic hardship, membership of the customs union is essential. Frankly, the wrecking ball that the hard Brexiteers would bring to British business and industry is pretty extraordinary, and all for what?
The Prime Minister had it pretty much right when she spelled out:
“We export more to Ireland than we do to China, almost twice as much to Belgium as we do to India, and nearly 3 times as much to Sweden as we do to Brazil. It is not realistic to think we could just replace European trade with these new markets.”
She said that in April 2016, and I contend, as the Prime Minister herself is fond of saying, that nothing has changed.
In the brief time available to me, I will raise the issue of standards, particularly in relation to my amendment 71. Clause 8 sets out factors to which the Treasury must have regard when considering the rate of import duties that apply to goods. Those factors include the interests of UK consumers and the desirability of maintaining and promoting productivity and external trade.
Amendment 71 would add to those factors. First, it would add the interests of UK producers, particularly farmers. Secondly, it would add the desirability of ensuring that UK standards of animal welfare, food safety and environmental protection are not undermined by imports produced to lower standards.
The Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions in February 2017, and many times since:
“We should be proud that in the UK we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world—indeed, one of the highest scores for animal protection in the world. Leaving the EU will not change that…we are committed to maintaining and, where possible, improving standards”.—[Official Report, 8 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 424.]
Similarly, we have heard the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs say on many occasions that we need to maintain, and where possible enhance, environmental and animal welfare standards. However, if the UK is unable to protect its farmers from being undermined by lower-quality imports, those farmers are likely to find it hard to be competitive and to go further on improving their animal welfare and environmental standards. Accordingly, when negotiating new trade agreements, it will be vital that the UK insists on the inclusion of a clause permitting it to require imports to meet UK animal welfare and environmental standards. I have tabled an amendment to the Trade Bill to that effect.
If that were not to happen and we were to lose the principle of prohibiting products that do not meet our standards, we would need some kind of backstop, which is where amendment 71 comes in. It would give Ministers the power to place differential tariffs on imports. Imports that do not conform to UK welfare standards would be subject to tariffs high enough to safeguard UK farmers. It would ensure that UK farm businesses were not undermined by low-quality products and that UK consumers would be protected from goods of a lower standard—chlorine-washed chicken, ractopamine-fed pork and hormone-treated beef, to name but a few—through tariffs on imports that do not meet UK standards. These tariffs would effectively make the cost of these lower-welfare products an awful lot higher to protect our standards here in the UK.
Mr Fysh
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the value of trade defences in our armoury. Would she consider supporting new clause 36, which is essential if the UK is to be able to operate its own trade defence policy, because if the EU is not collecting our tariffs for us at our border, there will potentially be nothing we can do about that?
Caroline Lucas
I am afraid that I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s faith in our own Government continuing to keep higher standards. We have already heard clear criticisms of new clause 36 for many other reasons, including the way in which it drives a coach and horses through the kind of customs union that we want, so I will not be supporting new clause 36.
I was going on to give examples of ways in which food standards in the US are much lower than our own. Many may find the prospect of eating chlorine-washed chicken disturbing. Although there appears to be no clear scientific evidence that it poses a substantial risk to human health, it is linked to poor animal welfare on farms and at slaughter. Similarly, ractopamine is a feed additive used to promote growth in pigs, and its use is permitted in the United States, but prohibited in the EU. There is evidence that it has a detrimental impact on pig welfare, with the Humane Society of the United States stating that it
“causes death, lameness, stiffness, trembling and shortness of breath in farm animals”.
Concerns have been expressed about its impact on human health as well.
My amendment 71 would simply require the Treasury, when considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply to any goods, to have regard to the interests of UK producers, such as farmers and to the desirability of ensuring that UK standards of animal welfare, food safety and environmental protection are not undermined by imports produced to lower standards. I will wrap up my comments about it there.
I am supporting a number of other measures, including that on dealing with impact assessments, which are vital when we talk about impacts on the economic situation in this country and on the Northern Ireland border. However, I just thought that it was important to put something on record in this debate about the impact on animal welfare and environmental standards, too.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
Let me start by saying that I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that the Bills we are considering today and tomorrow are vital pieces of legislation. I rise to speak against new clauses 1 and 12, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry); new clause 6, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper); and new clause 11, which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
I speak as someone who voted remain in June 2016. However, having had time to study these matters at close hand, and having an objective, pragmatic and reasonable approach—I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe that being objective and pragmatic is vital—I believe that it would be a grave error to enter into a customs union with the EU while being outside the EU. I shall give five reasons why I believe that to be the case.
Greg Hands
I am going to carry on and explore this point. Because Turkey is not subject to that agreement, as it is not a member of the European Union, Turkey must negotiate its own trade agreement with counterparts. It is not obliged to do so, and various counterparts have agreed a trade agreement with the EU but not agreed one with Turkey.
Greg Hands
No, I am not giving way as I am going to explore my points in the available time.
The lesson here is that these partners will be less likely, in many ways, to do a deal with such an economy, and ours is the fifth largest economy in the world. If they can get access to that economy through a trade agreement with the EU such that Britain would be forced to lower its tariffs, the people they might want to speak to are more likely to be in Brussels than in London.
My second reason relates to the pursuit of an independent trade policy and trade agreements. If we are no longer setting our own tariffs and they are set by somebody else, that weakens our ability to have a trade negotiation and to come to a trade agreement—by definition, we have a lot less to offer.
Remarkably, the third area—trade remedies—has not been explored at all tonight. I am amazed that the Labour party wants us to join—I am not sure what the official Front-Bench view is, but I think it is this—a customs union with the EU. Who would do our trade defences? Trade defences are incredibly important; they are the topic de jour in the current disputes between the United States, China and other counterparts. If we were in a customs union, it would be likely that Brussels would be making the decisions on trade remedies that would apply to the UK. We would not have a seat at that table when those decisions, which would affect our industry, were being made. Moreover, it would be likely to be against WTO rules for Brussels to make decisions that might affect the UK, because under WTO rules, people have to show the impact on their own market, not somebody else’s. So it is not at all clear to me—
Greg Hands
I am going to use my three remaining minutes.
The fourth area—again, it is remarkable that Labour is ignoring this—is the potential regulation of the NHS and other public services. I think that Labour Members have forgotten the TTIP debates of four or five years ago. They got very agitated about TTIP and the prospect of granting access to the NHS and other key public services in this country via a EU trade agreement. Now they seem to be happy for the EU, through a customs union, to negotiate potential access to the NHS and our markets. Even worse, we would not have a seat at the table when that trade agreement was set up. I find it remarkable that the Labour party is prepared to do that.
My final point has also not been raised in this debate, but it is a vital aspect of the Bill: trade preferences for the developing world. Again, I think that there is cross-party support for this country doing more and better in this area. The Bill allows for the transition of the scheme of trade preferences, meaning that the UK will have its own scheme of trade preferences. It will transfer overnight the European Union GSP—generalised scheme of preferences—and GSP+ and include everything but arms. Crucially, there will be the ability to improve on that scheme. If we stay in a customs union with the European Union, we will strangle in its infancy that ability to do better than the European Union on trade preferences.
The Trade Ministers to whom I have spoken in the Governments of countries such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh—they are all really important markets for this country and really important friends—would welcome the UK having the ability to offer better access for their goods than the European Union currently does. I am not saying that we will make a policy decision today, but it is extremely important that the Bill contains the ability for us to do that, and it is an underrated aspect of the legislation. Whatever we think of the access currently offered by the European Union, I do not think that anybody would say that the UK would be unable to offer better access if we had our own preference scheme under the Bill. That has been neglected in this debate.
Whatever we think of the original decision in June 2016, it would be a grave error to enter into a customs union with the European Union. It is not just a question of formalities and practicalities at the border; there many other really important issues, such as trade remedies and trade preferences with the developing world, that make entering a customs union with the European Union a very bad idea. I very much support the Bill and urge the House to reject the new clauses.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I apologise for the fact that I had to attend a Statutory Instrument Committee, but I was present at the beginning and I am here now. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), who brought us back to the detail of the Bill, which is where I wish to focus my remarks.
I was concerned that the proposed dumping methodology might not address the UK steel industry’s concerns, so I am pleased that the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) has tabled amendment 25. I am also pleased that the Government have engaged with Members from all parties and that last week, in response to a written parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), they underlined their commitment to
“protecting UK industry where it is suffering injury as a result of dumped imports.”
The Government went on to say that they would not allow that to happen and would use mechanisms for the calculation of dumping methods that, on the face of it, seem to have the support of industries such as steel and ceramics. I very much welcome the fact that the Government have listened and have worked with key industries during the Bill’s progress through Parliament.
I am less convinced by the situation in relation to the economic interest test. I was rather hoping that, in line with the rhetoric that we heard throughout the whole argument for leaving the European Union, we would take advantage of the opportunity that leaving the European Union offered to reduce any bureaucratic pressure on industries such as steel, rather than adding to their bureaucratic pressures. The economic interest test in the Bill adds extra layers compared with what currently exists in the European Union, so we have the genius of a Government bringing forward something even more complex than what we already have in the European Union. I did not think that was the purpose of what we were doing; perhaps I was naive.
In Committee, we expressed concerns about the proliferation of economic interest tests that have been built into the regime and that measures must pass before tariffs can be introduced. Of particular concern was the fact that such tests will first be conducted by the independent Trade Remedies Authority and then again by the Secretary of State, theoretically on a completely different basis. As such, we have pushed for the Secretary of State’s power in relation to the tests to be curtailed and at most to act as a sense-check on what the TRA has conducted. Anything more than that will introduce an unacceptable level of potentially political interference into the process. It will be an unnecessary block on what is happening. The real worry is that it will delay the introduction of trade remedies and thereby potentially subject industry to more damage. However, the Government have tabled amendments 103 and 108, which go some way towards addressing the concerns I have just outlined.
Government amendments 110 to 112 and 116 to 118 seek to deal with the replication of tests, but they would not do that sufficiently well, so I shall support amendment 21, tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which would achieve a better outcome.
Finally, let me say a little about safeguard measures and adjustment plans. I am concerned that the Government intend to require any industry that requests safeguard measures to submit adjustment plans to demonstrate how it will adjust to new market circumstances, before any safeguard investigation can be launched. In essence, that would require an industry to demonstrate what changes it was making to its operations, including efficiencies and rationalisations, before a safeguard investigation could even start. UK Steel and others have pointed out that in situations such as those we currently face in relation to US section 232 tariffs, such a requirement would be unjustified. Industry should not have to make major adjustments to deal with what is likely to be a temporary situation introduced by the non-WTO-compliant actions of another Government. I am therefore pleased that the Government have tabled amendment 113 to modify the requirement, allowing the TRA to waive the requirement when it deems it necessary or suitable. It would, though, be better if that pressure on industry—at a point at which it is already under significant pressure—were not there.
I wanted to put those concerns on the record so that the Government have the opportunity to make further improvements to the Bill as it makes progress in the other place and before it comes back to this House.
Craig Mackinlay
I rise to speak to amendment 73, tabled in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and which I wish to move at the appropriate time.
It now has to be a settled will that in future we are not going to be in the, or a, customs union with the European Union. That became clear during the hours of debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in this place and the other place, and that Bill became an Act. It is clear in the Chequers deal and the White Paper on the future relationship. The statement “We will not be in the customs union” has passed through the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House and Mansion House speeches, and through her statements on the Floor of the House on occasions far too numerous to mention.
We are not to be in a customs union. That was clearly the compact with the public made by the Conservatives and the Labour party in their manifestos last year. It is clearly the will of the people, as expressed in the June 2016 referendum. I do not think there can be any doubt about the clarity, because it was mentioned by all involved in that debate, no matter what side they supported. It is clearly the will of the people, of the Prime Minister and of the Cabinet. Similarly, when we negotiated and passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, it was the will expressed by a majority of this place.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) said earlier in an intervention that, were it necessary for there to be a customs union with some part of the world, there would need to be, at the right time, primary legislation that would also incorporate any requirements in the Government’s proposed new section 16A, which I am trying to nullify with amendment 73. I certainly hope that, given those settled wills, my amendment will be supported by the Government because anything else does not square with the manifesto on which we were elected and it certainly does not square with the manifesto on which the Labour party was elected either.
Craig Mackinlay
I will; I would enjoy continuing my speech so please intervene.
Craig Mackinlay
I am sorry, but that must have passed me by. I know that, to get around the difficulties that were caused by the tampon tax and the significant debate that we had in this Chamber, of which I was a part, the Government agreed to sort of equal the amount that was collected to pass it to charity. So it seems bizarre that we have not taken the steps that are available.
The other thing about going along with the VAT directives and how VAT is managed is that we have been subject to the missing trader intra-community fraud, the so-called carousel fraud, which cost this country £1.7 billion last year. It is estimated to cost the EU as a whole into the tens of billions of pounds. Over the period of the administration of VAT in its current form, it could have cost anything up to £100 billion across the EU. Are we really saying that these failed systems are something that we want to be attached to in perpetuity?
The Prime Minister has said very clearly that we will be in control of our tax policy. Just last week, following Chequers, the Secretary of State for the Environment also confirmed that we cannot actually set our own taxes as we would wish to at the moment because VAT is set in accordance with EU rules. That is another area in which we will be sovereign. Amendment 73 would make sure that, no matter what the future holds, primary legislation will be needed to do this. We cannot have the vestiges of some of the worst VAT rules that anybody could ever imagine remaining on our statute book. For that reason and given that powerful debate on the tampon tax, I certainly hope that others across this House will support that amendment this evening.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
When we had the referendum result, and given the bitterness that existed during the referendum, I had absolutely no doubt that, despite the overwhelming vote, we were going to see guerrilla warfare conducted against the will of the people of the United Kingdom. We have seen it over the past year and a half—fall-outs in this place and fall-outs in TV studios, newspapers and so on. The amendments to this Bill fall into one of those two categories. People will give a whole variety of reasons, but, basically, they want to move amendments to this Bill to keep us in the institutions of the EU, which has bound us for so many years and from which people voted to be free. On the other side, there are those who wish to remain true to the vote of the people and make sure that everything is done to deliver on the promises that were made during the referendum.
Unfortunately, Northern Ireland, which has featured in nearly every speech here tonight, has been caught in the crossfire of that guerrilla warfare between those who wish to keep us in the EU and those who wish to honour the result of the referendum. The Northern Ireland border, the Good Friday agreement and the peace in Northern Ireland have been thrown around willy-nilly. To be quite frank, the people of Northern Ireland feel abused in this whole process. I have heard people in this place talk about the Belfast agreement as if it were their bedtime reading. They probably do not even know what the document looks like.
It has been suggested that if we do not abide by those who wish to keep us in the customs union and the single market, we will have a hard border in Northern Ireland, which will affect the peace. I do not know what this hard border will look like, but I can tell Members one thing: if they think that a couple of border posts along the main road at Newry, the main road into Londonderry and the main road into Enniskillen will represent a hard border that will somehow protect the EU from the incursion of goods that they do not want, then they do not even understand what it means. It could be that they think that a hard border means a minefield around the border with watchtowers so that no lorries can sneak across the 300 or so roads, or that people cannot build sheds in the middle of field where they put goods in one side in Northern Ireland and they come out the other side in the Irish Republic. It is a ridiculous suggestion, yet it is thrown at us all the time.
We heard the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) talk about the impact on the border and that the World Trade Organisation would insist on the provisions because it would have to protect trade. The Irish Republic currently brings in goods from the rest of the world. Does it stop every container that comes in? No, it does not. Does it stop 10% of the containers? No, it does not. It does not even stop 1%. In fact, Gambia stops more trade coming through its borders than the Irish Republic stops. The idea that, somehow or other, every good that comes into the EU via Northern Ireland and then the Republic will have to be stopped does not even match with common-day practice.
When it comes to collecting taxes, 13,000 lorries a year cross the border carrying drink to other parts of the United Kingdom. There is duty to be collected on that, but not one of them is stopped because the duty is collected electronically through pre-notification and trusted trader status. We can protect the border and meet WTO rules without having all the kinds of paraphernalia suggested here tonight.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right; there seem to be an awful lot of people who do not really understand what goes on at the border now. Why would anyone who supports Northern Ireland even think of voting against new clause 37 tonight? The new clause clearly puts it out there that we want Northern Ireland to be treated the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom, so in voting against it, people would actually be supporting the Republic of Ireland.
Sammy Wilson
That is the whole point of new clause 37. First, it would deliver on the promises made by the Government; it puts those promises into law. Secondly, it would avoid the break-up of the United Kingdom and the kind of nonsense that we are going to hear from the Scottish National party—that we can redefine the United Kingdom to exclude Northern Ireland when it comes to trade issues. Of course, that would be against the Belfast agreement, because the Belfast agreement does not actually say a great deal about borders, but it says a lot about the integrity of the United Kingdom—that it cannot be changed by diktat from the EU or by demands from Dublin. It can only be changed with the will of the people of Northern Ireland. Yet the suggested backstop arrangement is at the behest of the EU, which seems to disregard the most important part of the Belfast agreement and has destabilised Northern Ireland as a result.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is of course right that the constitutional status of Northern Ireland has not been in dispute for a very long time and is underlined by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. People have only started talking about the constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland as a result of Brexit. That is the only thing that has now started to trigger any discussion around the break-up of the United Kingdom, and I am afraid that his party has helped that process.
Sammy Wilson
That is the point that I am making—that this red herring has been thrown into the debate to try to persuade people like me and Government Members to stay within the customs union and the single market. It is a red herring because, as I have said, it is not essential to have a hard border to protect trade between the United Kingdom outside the EU and the Irish Republic inside the EU. Other methods are currently used. We have a fiscal border, a regulatory border and a currency border. We do not need checks at the moment, so why would that change once we leave the EU?
The third thing about new clause 37 is that it would actually strengthen the Prime Minister’s hand. When she goes into negotiations, Barnier and Co. will still be badgering her and insisting that there has to be a different regime of regulation, law and EU interference in Northern Ireland. It will strengthen the Prime Minister’s hand to be able to say that the Parliament of the United Kingdom has said in law, “We will not and cannot change the status of Northern Ireland. We cannot have separate customs arrangements for Northern Ireland and the law says that.”
New clause 37 would also protect Northern Ireland from being cut off from its biggest market. The Irish Republic is not our biggest market. The whole EU is not our biggest market. Over 60% of the produce of Northern Ireland comes to Great Britain. Ironically, if the Government in Dublin were thinking with their head, they would recognise that the Barnier formula for the border is also detrimental to the Irish Republic, because it would mean having a border down the Irish sea, cutting the Irish Republic off from its biggest market. Over 50% of its agricultural products come here, yet it is concerned about the paltry border that counts for 1.6% of its trade. People just fail to understand why this should be the case and why the Government of the Republic should take that view.
The Prime Minister has an opportunity. New clause 37 would strengthen her hand in the negotiations coming up to October. She still has the opportunity to tell the EU, “If you want our money, give us a fair deal. We’ll prepare for a no deal if we can’t get a good deal. The balance of trade rests with us. If you want access to our markets, make sure that we get access to your markets.” That should be the approach. Get the handbag out, do a bit of swinging and get a good deal.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who has put on the record a great deal of fact and truth about the way in which the Northern Ireland issue has been treated in the negotiations and by the negotiating parties. What he missed out in his remarks was that this was not an issue until the Varadkar Government were elected. The expectation was that there would be an invisible customs frontier in Northern Ireland. That was confirmed by Bertie Ahern when he gave interviews on the subject. It was confirmed by the head of the Irish customs organisation when he gave evidence to the Irish Dáil. It was confirmed by Jon Thompson, the head of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, when he initially gave evidence to the Treasury Committee. This was not an issue until it was made an issue.
We are being asked to believe two extraordinary things. The first is that the Irish Republic itself might put infrastructure at the border of Northern Ireland, when the only reason that the Irish Republic recognises that there is a frontier between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is that it signed the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement. Secondly, when President Juncker appeared in front of the Dáil a few months ago and was pressed to give an assurance that he would not force the Republic to put infrastructure at the border, he more or less gave that assurance. In fact, it was perfectly clear that he was not going to say, “We will force you to put infrastructure at the border,” so it is clear that the EU is not going to force anyone to put infrastructure at the border.
It is still the policy of the Government that we might leave even without a withdrawal agreement, on WTO terms. Under such circumstances, we will not put any infrastructure at the Irish border in Northern Ireland, and we will challenge the Irish Republic and the EU Commission not to do the same in the interests of peace in Northern Ireland. It is perfectly possible to manage an infrastructure-free customs frontier in Northern Ireland, and that is what will happen. It is pure obstinacy on the part of the Commission that it will not negotiate with the United Kingdom a free trade agreement on the basis of making an agreement with the whole United Kingdom, instead of excluding Northern Ireland.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is making some very good points. I certainly do not argue that we should be members of customs union, but the Freight Transport Association recently gave the example of a situation whereby a trailer full of 40 different consignments goes from Birmingham to Belfast, and then goes into 40 different white vans in Belfast. How does my hon. Friend propose that we would meet our responsibility to pay customs in such a situation?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am immensely grateful. May I encourage the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) to draw his remarks to a close? He is within his time, but a lot of other people want to speak and I am being pressed by people who, quite understandably, want time. If the hon. Gentleman—with his brilliant eloquence and pithiness—could wrap up in a minute or two, that would be marvellous.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to answer my hon. Friend’s point, I think that we have to be practical. There will be a change in the way in which people treat consignments because they are crossing a customs frontier, but as the technology develops it will be possible to track individual consignments or multiple consignments in trucks across customs frontiers. We have discussed this matter with Revenue and Customs in this country. Ultimately, in future—looking ahead 10 or 20 years—the idea of customs frontiers existing between countries that trade tariff-free will become obsolete. To hinge our entire Brexit policy on the issue of not having customs declarations and customs frontiers is very last century, and we should not be captured by that.
My remarks are directed primarily at amendment 72, which I confess has turned out to be disappointingly uncontroversial. It was the intention of the European Research Group, a group of Conservative Back Benchers, to table four amendments—one or two of them in the light of the Chequers agreement and the White Paper—to test our understanding of the intention of Government policy. Every single one of our amendments, we believe, reflects Government policy. I do not imagine that the Government would have accepted any of them as calmly as they have if they did not reflect Government policy.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
My right hon. and learned Friend, who seems to be becoming a remainer again, judging from his article in the Evening Standard—
Sir Bernard Jenkin
No, that is what he said. He said that we will have to rethink Brexit completely if we cannot get a satisfactory arrangement. That is the direction he is going in. I respect his view, but throwing around insults like “useless” is not elevating the debate.
My amendment 72 simply removes from the Bill an extraordinarily powerful Henry VIII provision that we should be signed up to a customs union with the European Union simply by order. Following the amendment that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) tabled to clause 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, I thought that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I do not suppose that I shall hear him speak against my amendment, because it puts Parliament back in control of the decision to join a customs union with the European Union. That is what I think we should do.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I end on this one point, Mr Speaker. We have heard a lot about 40 MPs having an excessive amount of influence in this Chamber. In fact, 17.4 million people voted leave in the referendum, and 70% of Conservative MPs and 60% of Labour MPs represent leave constituencies. It would be bizarre if, in the end, the House of Commons, which was elected predominantly on leave manifestos, put up road blocks against leaving the European Union, and I do not believe that it will.
Mr Speaker
Thank you. The time limit will have to be reduced, with immediate effect, to five minutes.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I wish to speak to new clause 11 and against amendment 73.
Last week, we had a debate in Westminster Hall in which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is back in his place, advised me that everything would become clear when the White Paper was published. I am afraid that for me, 70 minutes before we are going to vote, Government policy is still not quite clear. I am going to ask the Minister a few questions in the hope that we might get some clarification from him. I am interested in the interrelationship between the Bill and the White Paper, which was published last week.
Contrary to what some right hon. and hon. Members wish to say, the common market, which is the customs union, is fantastically popular with the public. Whenever I ask my constituents, “What do you dislike about Europe?”, they say, “Being bossed around”, and “The immigration.” When I say, “What do you like about it?”, they say, “Oh, we love the common market.” Well, of course, the common market is the customs union. When I talk to industrialists, what they want—in the words of GlaxoSmithKline, which employs 1,000 people in my constituency—is “no disruption”. PPG Industries, which is a supplier to Airbus, wants a common rule book. When I spoke this morning to the North East chamber of commerce, it said that 90% of its members want to stay in the customs union. We know that legally speaking that is not possible, so we have to have a new one that will give them the “exact same benefits”.
I am not clear about whether the Bill facilitates the customs approach that is set out in the White Paper. Nor am I clear about which of the Government’s amendments have made changes to the Bill that will enable them to undertake the facilitated customs arrangement that they have described in the White Paper. Nor am I clear—I very much hope that the Minister will be able to explain this; I am sure that he now will be—about whether the Government’s proposed acceptance of amendments from the ERG means that they are abandoning the facilitated customs arrangement as their opening position or that they are still holding to it. If they are still holding to it, I would suggest that it is not wholly practical. It will need a tracking system so that when people import goods, they know where their final use is going to be. This is a whole new bureaucratic system. It means that people who import will have to have information along the supply chain that, at the moment, is of no concern to them. The White Paper says that there is going to be a formula so that we can follow the proportions from the past year, but what if things change from one year to another? Then people will have to make their rebates on the basis of new, fresh information in real time. It sounds very much as though we are going to have not only VAT but VAT mark 2.
Paragraph 20 on page 18 of the White Paper says:
“This could include looking to make it easier for traders to lodge information…This could include exploring how machine learning and artificial intelligence could allow traders to automate…This could…include exploring how allowing data sharing across borders”
would work. It could include rather a lot of things. I can only imagine officials saying to Ministers when they were drafting this, “This does seem to involve rather a lot of imagination.” It does not seem to be bottomed out. I would much prefer it if we could go along the path set out by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench in new clause 11, because what is being proposed will be horrendously bureaucratic and an open invitation to smuggling.
Mr Grieve
There is one matter on which I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and that is that this piece of legislation is needed if we are leaving the EU. That is the first basic point that needs to be made in considering this Bill on Report.
Then one has to consider why the Report stage becomes so controversial. The difficulty is that throughout the whole of this Brexit process, we are collectively going through an exercise in both deception and self-deception about the implications of leaving the European Union and the sort of relationship we may have thereafter.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has produced a White Paper. It is far from perfect. It, too, continues with some of those obfuscations, I have to say. To give an example—I know that this has irritated many of my right hon. and hon. Friends—it talks about the common rulebook and then says, “Don’t worry—we will be escaping the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.” We may escape its jurisdiction, but I am the first to accept that the reality is that we are going to be bound by its jurisprudence, without any ability to influence how that jurisprudence develops. That is one of the costs that we are paying as a result of deciding to leave.
In exactly the same way, there are other costs that come from leaving and that we tend to brush under the carpet, including the economic costs that are going to come to this country. If we are going to make rational choices, we need to avoid continuing with exercises in self-deception. The reason I think it right to support the Prime Minister on the White Paper is that despite all the difficulties she has had, this represents the first sensible document to found a proper negotiation. I wish her well with it, even if I have criticisms of it, worry about the absence of services and a common market for that, and worry about some of its other aspects; nevertheless, it is well-intentioned.
Then I look at the four amendments tabled by some of my hon. Friends—36, 37, 72 and 73. The first thing to be said about them is that one—the one about Northern Ireland—correctly identifies an obfuscation that the Government have been practising for a considerable time. We and the European Commission are talking different languages when it comes to the backstop. I have no difficulty emphasising the fact that no Parliament of the United Kingdom is ever going to support a backstop that goes simply for Northern Ireland alone.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clauses 1, 11 and 12, and very much in support of a customs union.
I was surprised by the way the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), described the border between Detroit and Ontario, which I was lucky enough to visit in February with fellow members of the International Trade Committee. I witnessed something slightly different from what he witnessed. I did see friction—even on a very cold, icy day, people spent considerable time at the border. There is an X-ray building for pantechnicons, and vehicles are frequently taken out of queues to be examined. The situation there is not as simple as he suggested. To underline that—perhaps he is not aware of this—Canada is having to invest in a second bridge across the river between Ontario and Detroit to safeguard its businesses because of the delays they suffer.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), for whom I have huge respect. He described the great fear associated with what seems to be the pursuit of ideological goals or indeed personal ambition on the part of certain individuals. Importantly, for almost a year I have been trying to encourage businesses—the likes of Jaguar Land Rover in my constituency and others—to speak out. Businesses are terrified of doing that because they fear incurring the wrath of the public. They see it not as their responsibility but as ours, as elected representatives. However, in recent weeks, they have felt it necessary to speak out, and of course we have heard from Airbus and Jaguar Land Rover. On the rare occasions they speak, they do so softly, but it is important that we and the public listen to them.
It is far more important for us to listen to the likes of Jaguar Land Rover and BMW-Mini than—dare I say it?—to the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). I think the public are beginning to see that—and to recognise that, among all the debate that goes on in this place, those business voices are starting to provide some clarity.
Businesses have waited for more than two years for the Government to give them some sort of direction in the face of uncertainty, which is a threat to them. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). I respect him and his experience, but disruption and uncertainty are the greatest concerns for businesses, which have been reviewing their options for the past 24 months. Irrespective of where we end up in the coming weeks, they are already making decisions and looking at options abroad for future investment.
Anything that makes life difficult for businesses—anything that adds cost and time—makes them review their options and consider what is in their best interest. In the automotive sector and many others, businesses would not be so obviously viable if they had to incur the cost of additional tariffs under WTO rules. They will review a 10% or 4.5% tariff, cost it in and think, “Is it really best for us to stay in the UK?”
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend speaks with great experience on these matters. Does he agree that small businesses may not be able to accommodate the additional costs he mentions from tariffs, rules of origin—we discussed those earlier—and customs declarations, which may exceed the profits they make on the goods they sell? Small and medium-sized enterprises would be most adversely affected by a no deal situation, which some Government Members argue we should contemplate with equanimity.
Matt Western
My right hon. Friend is right that SMEs, particularly in the component supply chain, are the most vulnerable to these sorts of changes. They are the most likely either to lose business elsewhere or to have to move abroad. I can give concrete examples where that has already taken place.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe described the apparent view that the customs union is some sort of problem holding us back. He is right that it has not held us back. The likes of Germany, which exports 10 times more to China than we do, are in the customs union, which has not been to their disadvantage. As he said, we have witnessed the most phenomenal explosion in the success of the automotive industry in this country over the past 10 years—after 20 years of relative stagnation, it grew by more than 50% in that period.
In summary, where it is rare for businesses to speak out, we should listen. They do not intervene lightly in politics, in this country or elsewhere. The preservation of a true customs union is critical to safeguarding business and investment in this country, and that is why I support new clauses 1, 11 and 12.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
I should say first that I recognise the importance of the Bill and why it is necessary if we are leaving the European Union. However, many of the amendments reflect the fact that, regrettably, the White Paper simply does not represent the clearcut, deliverable strategy that I believe our country needs—it is a fudge.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) set out, remainers question why we are accepting so many rules while forfeiting the right to sit at the table where they are decided. I know that many of my colleagues who campaigned strongly to leave are equally unhappy and believe, with some merit, that people who voted leave in the referendum are simply not getting the kind of Brexit they feel would give our country the clean break it needs if it is going to be successful.
I spent a long time in business before I came to this place, and I know that if a strategy is to be successful, it needs to be clearcut and one that everyone can get behind. I may not agree with some of my colleagues about what the best strategy is, and I may not want to leave on WTO rules, but in the context of the White Paper it is important for us to listen to colleagues who are respected on this issue—perhaps none more so than my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). Of course, he has been at the forefront of this deal’s development for the past two years, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), whom I think we would all describe as ever-resourceful. Both took principled decisions to leave the Government, and I respect that. I know from my own circumstances that such decisions are not easy, but I also fully understand why they took them.
There might, in practice, be three practical options for our country’s way forward, but I believe that, in reality, there are only two clear strategies, and therefore only two paths to take if we are to achieve a successful Britain in the long term. Of course, both paths have pros and cons, and although there are passionate views on both sides, it is important that we debate these, as far as possible, in a measured way.
But the Prime Minister has now presented us with a third way—a compromise between the other two pathways. I understand the Government’s desire to achieve compromise, but I genuinely believe that the White Paper demonstrates that, in reality, our choice is between either one approach or the other. It is vital that we have a realistic, clearcut strategy that can actually be delivered. If we have a plan that we cannot deliver, it is not a plan. Regrettably, the White Paper attempts to ride two horses, and that never works.
It is on that basis that I have said that this deal is the worst of all worlds, and in the end it will please no one. It is probably the worst outcome we can get. It keeps nobody happy at all. Whether one accepts my arguments or those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), for example, both paths have pros and cons, but both represent clear routes forward that are genuine strategies for our country.
My concern is that this place has reached stalemate. As this debate exemplifies, there are still deep divisions in people’s views, and I think we understand why. My view now is that, because of that stalemate, it is time for the British public to have the final say on the clear approaches we face on Brexit. We absolutely must settle this now if we are to move beyond Brexit and get on to the vital issues facing our country such as housing, a lack of social mobility and social care. That is what we should be aiming to do. I do not believe that we should have a compromise that simply has to be reopened and renegotiated later. I have reached my conclusion on the Chequers deal, and I know that colleagues will look more closely at it in the coming days. I leave Members to think on these words:
“Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both directions.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Several Members, all on the same side of the House, wish to speak. I suggest that the time limit be now reduced to four minutes, but it is not obligatory for Members to consume all four.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I first thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) for making what I thought was a remarkably gracious speech, in quite a fevered atmosphere, and for putting both sides of the case so generously and kindly?
I want to speak to the four new clauses and amendments that I have supported and, in most cases, put my name to. They are broadly in line with Government policy, which is why the Government have accepted them. New clause 37 relates to the Northern Ireland question. It is clearly Government policy that Northern Ireland should not be removed from the rest of the United Kingdom, and I think that to put that in legislation would be beneficial.
Amendment 72 relates to Henry VIII clauses. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—or “beacon’s field”, as Benjamin Disraeli pronounced it—that we should not have Henry VIII clauses if we can possibly avoid them, as they are not good legislative practice. The fewer Henry VIII clauses we have, the better. I confess that I would have supported my right hon. and learned Friend in earlier Bills had I not thought that, in so doing, I would have caused suspicion on the other side of the European debate, with people wondering what on earth I was up to. However, I am very pleased that Henry VIII clauses are becoming less popular in the House.
Amendment 73 has been a topic of discussion in relation to no EU VAT regime. This is actually Government policy, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on “The Andrew Marr Show”, when he said that once we had left the European Union we would not be part of the EU VAT regime. The difference here is between acquisition VAT and import VAT. Import VAT is the normal way we charge VAT on third countries outside the European Union, whereas acquisition VAT is an EU system. Therefore, if we are leaving, it makes absolute sense to be out of this, and that fits with what the Government have said.
Mr Leslie
I do not quite see how the hon. Gentleman can say that that is compatible with the Government’s policy, given that the Chequers White Paper, which was published only last Thursday, states:
“To ensure that new declarations and border checks between the UK and the EU do not need to be introduced for VAT and Excise purposes, the UK proposes the application of common cross-border processes and procedures for VAT and Excise”.
How is his proposal in any way compatible with Government policy?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I can merely appeal to how this was set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who said that we would not be part of the EU’s VAT regime. VAT is not collected at the border; it is collected via statements from people who import and then send in returns in relation to their VAT. This would enforce a uniform system across all our VAT collection—that is the purpose. If a Minister states that that is Government policy, it is good enough for me, and if it is Government policy to have that in law, it seems quite sensible. Therefore, not having a clause that is contradictory to Government policy simply flows from that.
I want to focus on new clause 36, which has attracted the most controversy in this debate. The importance of the new clause is that it would actually allow the Government to run their trade policy. Trade remedies, which were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), would not be possible if the new clause were not implemented, because that position would simply allow for goods to be imported into the UK via other EU member states and not subject to any anti-dumping measures that we might have taken.
Right hon. and hon. Members might be aware that in 2016 we bought £42 billion-worth of imports from Holland and £26 billion-worth of imports from Belgium. That was not entirely clogs and chocolates; it was, in fact, re-imports of goods that had come through the major ports in the low countries and through to the United Kingdom. That is a major gateway of goods into the EU that then come to the UK. If we have our own trade policy, we must be able to ensure that those goods are subject to our duties, in terms of revenue collection and protection, but also in terms of anti-dumping measures, if we choose to take them. Otherwise, we would find that we were simply following anti-dumping measures implemented by the European Union and had no independent policy.
The point of reciprocity also seems to me to be fair. If we are to say to the European Union, “We will collect your taxes and remit them to you,” that is potentially a large amount of money to be sending to the European Union, giving up all the duties that would fall to us as a result of goods entering the 27 remaining member states. Should we really be affording to do that? What is happening to that revenue, in terms of our independent trade policy, not if we want anti-dumping measures, but if we want to lower prices?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Djanogly
Let me start by saying that, to my mind, the European Research Group’s amendments are clearly aimed at restricting the Government’s ability to negotiate, if indeed they are compatible with the White Paper at all—a White Paper that I support. Amendment 73 and new clause 36 certainly fall into that category. I think that they have been tabled by those who wish to create such difficulties and red lines that we are forced into a hard Brexit, ostensibly by default but secretly by design. They will not have my support tonight.
I want to address the claims of those who say that we do not want the FCA, or indeed a customs union, because we cannot then strike our own trade deals. I note that the Government maintain that we should be able to separate goods from services, but others caution against that because goods and services are often so intrinsically linked that it is unrealistic. I will wait to see the EU’s position.
However, on the central issue of negotiating our own FTAs, I think that we need to question the benefits that so many seem to be taking for granted. First, we need to appreciate that the Department for International Trade is currently acting like something of a Jekyll and Hyde character—on the one hand the Secretary of State is talking about bravely striding around the world seeking new FTAs with countries such as the US and China, but on the other he is pleading with the EU and about 70 third-party countries to roll over the existing 40 or so FTAs that the EU now has with them. So, with more than one third of the world’s countries, Brexit represents the chance at best to get the same deal as from the EU. From the look of things, we may yet get a worse deal in some cases as those third countries start evaluating the decreased advantage of dealing with 50 million rather than 500 million people.
Secondly, there is little evidence that business sees any advantage in customs differentiation—indeed, quite the opposite. The vast majority see advantages in our customs negotiating position, which emanates from the power of the huge trading bloc that the EU represents, and will wish in any event to stick as closely as possible to whatever trading position the EU takes.
Thirdly, world trade is much more interlinked and complex than most people discuss. For example, some of the existing trade agreements that we want to roll over, such as those with Canada and South Korea, feature most favoured nation clauses. Therefore, if we agree a FTA with the USA that offers better terms than those we agreed with Canada, Canada would need to be offered the same. The advantages of being outside the customs union are thus much reduced in any event, and talk of becoming a colony or vassal state is ridiculous.
Fourthly, we live in a world of trading deals where size matters. Rather than discussing a trade deal with the US, we have become caught up in a trade battle. Again, if we were in a customs union, we would have more cover.
Finally, the process of negotiating new FTAs is a long and arduous business. The average time is seven years; Canada took 15 years. Bargaining is tough and based on potential market clout. That goes back to the possibility of US chlorinated chickens and so forth. We need—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extremely obliged to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I could always listen at length, but we must move on.
Kevin Hollinrake
I want to speak against new clause 1, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) tabled.
Among many points my constituents have made to me in the past few weeks, they have asked why the House cannot work together on Brexit. I suppose the simple answer is that our biggest challenge—what divides us most—is not acceptance of the result of the referendum on 23 June 2016, but its practical interpretation as the basis for our future relationship with the EU.
Parliament is bound by our promise on Brexit, but perhaps it also needs to accept some key principles, which reflect the promises that were made during the referendum campaign. Where better to look for those promises than the voice of the official body that argued for Brexit—Vote Leave? On trade, the Vote Leave manifesto was clear:
“We take back the power to make our own trade deals”.
On that basis, it is clear that we must not remain part of a customs union as that would prevent us from directly negotiating and implementing trade deals. It is therefore strange that being part of a customs union seems to be Labour party policy, which goes right against the clear mandate that the people gave us.
There were other commitments in the Vote Leave manifesto, for example,
“one thing which won’t change is our ability to trade freely with Europe.”
On that basis, it is fair for businesses, and the people whose jobs rely on those businesses, to assume that nothing will change. Of course, Members have made the point that other countries manage to have just-in-time supply chains when they have a customs border, but most countries have not been part of a trading environment for 44 years in which they have not carried the burden of those complexities.
We know from Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage that businesses have a choice to station themselves here or move jobs to other parts of the EU because extra costs will ensue if they do not: costs for customs checks and for checks on standards. I believe that staying part of a customs union is not consistent with the mandate that the people gave us, but that the White Paper, as articulated by the Prime Minister, deals with our obligation to leave the EU while also minimising the costs of comparative advantage. The House should support it.
Charlie Elphicke
In the referendum campaign, the Home Office told my constituents that the jungle would move from Calais to Dover. The former Prime Minister said that there would be queues of lorries and gridlock on the way to Dover—a mantra that the Labour party took up. The Treasury told my constituents that they would lose their jobs and their homes to boot in a calamitous disaster.
Despite that level of fear, my constituents believed in the opportunity that lay before them. Two thirds voted to leave the EU. Why? Because they believed in the kind of opportunities and the kind of Britain that we can build. They believed in better. They believed in the future, in our sense of nationhood and independence and in the country that we could build: independent and out in the wide world. It is important to remember that, because change does not come easily; it takes political courage.
Our voters have shown more courage than far too many Members of this House, who fear change and are afraid of grasping opportunities and what the world offers. Our voters better understand the need for that courage. They can look at the figures and see that the EU has been in relative decline in the past few decades, going from 30% to just 15% of GDP. [Interruption.] The spokesman for Brussels, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), does not like those figures, but they are true. Our voters also know that 90% of future economic growth in the world will come from outside the EU. That is why it is so important to believe in better, back our constituents and make a success of Britain out in the world—a global Britain.
Vicky Ford
We are leaving the EU and that means that we need to have a new relationship with the single market and the customs union—we cannot carry on as we were before. However, leave voters were told time and again that trade would continue and that having customs clarity was important to that trade.
I want to dispel some myths. First, zero-tariff regimes are not the same as no-tariff regimes. A no-tariff regime, which we have now, means no customs declaration and no rules of origin. A zero-tariff regime means both. That is why I am glad that the White Paper says that we will have no customs declarations and no rules of origin.
On myth two, we do not need to be in a customs union to resolve the rules of origin issue. That can be done through a PEM convention. On myth three, being in a single rulebook on goods does not stop us from doing trade deals with other parts of the world—just look at Switzerland. On myth four, trading on World Trade Organisation rules means that there will have to be a goods border in Ireland, otherwise the UK will breach our agreements with other trading partners, as will the EU. On myth five, just-in-time delivery of goods coming from China, which takes four weeks at sea, is not the same as just-in-time delivery across the channel.
I support some of the amendments. New clause 37 on no hard border in the Irish sea makes sense. Amendment 72 also makes sense. However, I am concerned about amendment 73. I do not like the EU VAT regime, but we need more clarity on that. On new clause 36, I agree we need a balanced approach on tax collection, but how it is worded is very unclear. I do not understand how the word “reciprocity” works in a legal framework when it is country to country versus us to EU. There needs to be a much clearer legal basis.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I want to focus on trade remedies. This is particularly important for the ceramic sector in my constituency, so I am absolutely delighted that the Government have listened to the arguments I have been making over the past year and secured clarifying amendments on trade remedies that, critically, will deliver the right Brexit for the ceramic sector, for wider manufacturing industry, and, most importantly, for the workforce and the voters of Stoke-on-Trent.
The Government have tabled several critical amendments. I was very pleased last week to have an answer to a written question providing confirmation on establishing normal value. That is so important to resisting the dumping of ceramic products from China. Significant state subsidisation by China, particularly in the ceramics industry, threatens British industry, so I am pleased that the Government have listened to those arguments and, through their amendments, have taken action.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Given that there may not be a Third Reading, I will start very briefly with some thank yous. I would like to thank Scott Taylor, one of our researchers. I would also like to thank the work of the Public Bill Office, particularly that of Colin Lee and Gail Poulton, who have been absolutely excellent in their support to all of us who have been here throughout the passage of the Bill.
I want to talk about the history of the Bill and how we got to this point. We had the Committee stage earlier this year. On the Saturday morning after it finished, and almost out of the blue, the UK Government announced that they would not be entering into a customs union. They clearly did not think it through, bringing out the announcement at the most stupid time: after all the debates in Committee. It was totally ill-thought-out.
We then had the Chequers agreement on 6 July. The White Paper was published on 12 July, which Members will note was the day after the amendments were tabled to this Report stage of the Bill—we all had to table our amendments before we had actually seen the White Paper. I thank the Minister for coming to Westminster Hall to give us some level of reassurance, but pretty much all the reassurance he could give was, “Please look at the White Paper that’s coming out on Thursday.” It has, therefore, been really difficult to prepare for the Bill. It has been really difficult to write this speech, trying to game exactly what is going to happen tonight. I am still not clear.
There are too many factions in this House. We have the UK Government, the Conservative remainers, the European Research Group, the Democratic Unionist party, the Labour leavers, the Labour remainers and the Labour Front Bench. The UK Government will not support things put forward by anybody who supports remain. The Labour Front Bench will not support anything put forward by the Conservative remainers. The members of the ERG will not support anything put forward by anybody except themselves. The Democratic Unionist party will support whatever the UK Government tell it to, on the basis that it is being paid to do so. It is a complete shambles. Trying to do anything sensible in this House is incredibly difficult, especially given that we know there is a majority for a customs union among the Members of this House. Despite that, we are going to end up in a situation where members of the ERG, who believe in the polar opposite of a customs union, are having their amendments accepted. When the rest of us put forward anything vaguely sensible, our amendments are not accepted.
This is certainly not about sovereignty for the people or sovereignty for Parliament; it is about sovereignty for a very small group of elite Tories who want to have their say. The Government are letting them have their say. I could not be more angry about the fact that the ERG’s amendments are apparently going to be accepted. I do not want to direct all my ire at those on the Government Front Bench. Those on the Labour Front Bench need to be absolutely clear on their position. They need to be clear that they will support the softest possible Brexit. If they are talking about a jobs-first Brexit, they need to recognise the benefits of the customs union and the single market. They have the opportunity to do that tonight by supporting some of the amendments that have been tabled by those who support a soft Brexit.
The Scottish National party does not support fully a number of amendments that we plan to vote for tonight. Our position is that Scotland voted to remain in the EU, so we would like to remain in the EU. Scotland supports remaining in the single market and the customs union, so the SNP will support anything that keeps us in the single market and the customs union. In the absence of those options being on the table, we will do what we can to protect the economic and cultural interests of the whole United Kingdom. Even though some of the amendments are not brilliant, we will vote for anything that makes Brexit slightly softer than the Brexit that is being proposed. I needed to make it clear that just because we support an amendment here does not mean that it is a preferred option. It means that it is not quite as bad as some of the other options.
I make it clear that I will press new clause 16, in my name and the names of my colleagues, and I would also like to speak in favour of our other amendments. The SNP position is crystal clear, as I said. The UK Government position is not. I welcome some clarity that is given in the White Paper that was published after Chequers, but I have major concerns about some of it. It mentions specifically a trusted trader scheme. On the trusted trader scheme that we have—the authorised economic operator scheme—I have raised concern after concern about it, and I am not the only one; organisations such as the British Chambers of Commerce have, too. If there is to be an expanded trusted trader scheme, it needs to actually work. It needs to be applicable to small businesses and businesses need to be able to access that scheme. We are now at the stage that businesses should know what those schemes are. If the Government are going to bring them forward, they need to do so as quickly as they possibly can so that businesses can be clear on what basis they will be trading in future. That is really important.
I am pleased to see that diagonal accumulation has been recognised in the Chequers agreement. I have been talking about it for some time, and I am really glad that it has been recognised and that we will have a situation where we will possibly still be able to export cars to South Korea, because that is really important for our car industry. I am pleased that the Government have now made it clear that they are pursuing that.
Protective geographical indicators are also mentioned in the Chequers White Paper. I am slightly concerned about the way the Government are going on this. It would be very good to have more information around that. A PGI scheme that applies only to the UK and does not recognise EU PGIs is a bit of a problem, so we need more clarity from the UK Government on how they intend the PGI scheme to work. I know that there is a negotiation, but if we could have their point of view first, that would be very useful.
I want to briefly mention some of the other meat in the Bill and something that the British Retail Consortium brought to us. It encapsulated some of the issues with the Bill very neatly. It said that there are not yet agreements on security, transit, haulage, VAT and people and that we need mutual recognition on veterinary, health and other checks with the EU. It seems that the Government are pursuing some of this, so that is good news. We need investment in IT systems to deliver the customs declaration system. Again, I am still not convinced that this will come through in time, so if the Minister could give reassurance that it will, I would very much appreciate it. We need co-ordination between agencies at ports and borders, as well as investment and capacity and staff at ports. The Government have not done enough on both those things. They have not put the extra resource into ports. They have not told ports how they will be administering these things in the future. If ports are going to have to massively increase their staff numbers, they need to know now how they will do that.
On queuing, a two-minute delay at Dover will create a 17-mile queue, so it is not as though Operation Stack will just happen as normal. This will not be Operation Stack. It will be an incredibly large version of it, and Operation Stack was bad enough. The BRC also mentioned AEOs, particularly in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises. All those things are still concerns about the Bill and I will raise them on Third Reading, if we have a Third Reading debate, because I do not believe that the Bill is fit for purpose as it is.
I specifically want to talk about the new clauses from the ERG. If the UK Government are bound to accept them, we have a very, very severe problem. I have major issues with new clauses 36 and 37 and amendments 72 and 73. New clause 36 relates to reciprocity. Page 13 of the Chequers agreement says:
“At the core of the UK’s proposal is the establishment by the UK and the EU of a free trade area for goods.”
It then goes on to make clear on page 17 that
“the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border for goods intended for the UK.”
This new clause directly contradicts that.
What is the point in having a White Paper released on a Thursday if the Government are going to ignore it on Monday? I do not understand how we can be in that position. How can businesses know where we are going if the Government do not even know where they are going? For the Government to be accepting amendments by a group of around 14—who knows how many of them there are?—ERG members to get a hard Brexit is absolutely ridiculous. If there is going to be a Brexit, we need a Brexit that does what the Labour party suggests it should do: protects jobs. We need the Labour party to support a Brexit that protects jobs as well, not just us.
The Bill is a mess. It does not do what it set out to do, which is replicate the union customs code, and it does not now do what the Chequers agreement said it would on Friday. We need everybody in the House, from all the various factions I mentioned earlier, to get behind proposals that protect jobs and the sovereignty of the people, not just the sovereignty of an elite few.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I read the White Paper on the train home on Thursday, if only out of a sense of morbid curiosity, but following the Prime Minister’s capitulation to the Brexiteers today, that curiosity has turned to a sense of the macabre. To begin with, we had the woman in the bunker with the blacked-out windows saying we were outward facing. Are we? This from the Prime Minister who invented a hostile environment for the Windrush generation and for disabled people claiming their rightful benefits and whose Government have been on the wrong side of the law more times than Arthur Daley.
The Prime Minister went on to state that we had a dynamic and innovative economy. Do we? Our economy is 35% less productive than Germany’s; we invest less and we have the most regionally imbalanced economy in Europe. Growth is sluggish and inflation stubborn. And on it goes—it gets more surreal. She says we live by common values of openness and tolerance for others and the rule of law. Really? The only thing the Conservative party is open to and tolerant of is big fat donations from Russian oligarchs. But here is where it gets really interesting. When she speaks about sticking to our principles, one has to wonder which principles she is referring to—the ones she referred to yesterday and which are enshrined in the White Paper or those she holds this afternoon, which tear the White Paper to shreds. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
The Prime Minister wanted to deliver an ambition to “once and for all” strengthen our communities, our Union, our democracy and our place in the world. I will take those claims one by one: our communities have been ripped apart by austerity; our Union is in danger from Ministers out of touch with the needs of any nation and afraid to move away from their desks in case someone else takes it; our democracy is threatened by swathes of Henry VIII powers; and our place in the world is a laughing stock due to the Prime Minister’s supine sycophancy to Donald Trump, who humiliated her.
The White Paper—what is left of it—came from the pen of a Prime Minister obsessed with silly soundbites. She used to talk about “Labour’s magic money tree” until she wanted a magic money tree of her own with which to bribe the Democratic Unionist party, when that phrase was quickly ditched. What about the infamous “strong and stable” mantra? It turned out to be more like a strong and stable smell of panic during the election and was ditched as well. Finally, it seems that this White Paper has also been ditched.
As for Northern Ireland, I present, the buffer zone—a 10-mile-wide area along the entire boundary between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Under the EU’s trading rules, to be operational this buffer would have to be policed on both sides of the 10-mile divide. Did we really spend decades trying to get rid of divides in Northern Ireland only to resurrect them? I think not. As for the facilitated customs arrangement, we are not clear what about it constitutes a partnership, as it would effectively leave UK customs officials working to maintain a customs union that we are no longer a part of.
Regardless of who is responsible for managing the duties, it remains unclear how the FCA would be frictionless. Presumably, the final destination of goods would have to be queried as they enter the UK. This would slow down the passage of goods across our borders and prevent intricate supply chains from functioning properly. It would lead to waste, uncertainty and expense for business, to higher prices for consumers and to job losses and production moving abroad, as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) pointed out. In that regard, the comments from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) were unconscionable.
What about the UK border? Does the Minister expect checks to be in place to ensure that goods that claim the UK as their final destination are not diverted into the EU once they arrive? Presumably, we would need customs checks and controls between the EU and the UK to reconcile goods to documents when, for example, UK anti-dumping duties exceed those applicable on import. Can the Minister clarify? Can he tell us how many trusted traders—the Tories using the word “trusted”; that’s a laugh, isn’t it?—are currently registered with the Government’s scheme and how many they believe will be registered by the end of the transition period?
Of course, all this can be avoided if the House chooses to support Labour’s clear and pragmatic solution to the issues of frictionless trade within the EU and preventing a hard border in Northern Ireland. New clause 11 presents Labour’s practical solution to the problems that have confounded the Conservatives. In our new clause, we call on the Government to negotiate a new customs union with the European Union, to be in place when we leave the current customs union at the end of the transition period. That is the only way to ensure that we can have frictionless trade with our largest trading partner and help to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. It is what business needs and producers want, and it is what would most benefit the public.
Mr Speaker
I call the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mel Stride, but, as I do so, I must advise the House that the right hon. Gentleman is accompanied tonight, on his 13th wedding anniversary, by his good wife Michelle and their daughters Ophelia and Evelyn. It is an unusual way to spend the evening, but we hope they are enjoying it and we look forward to hearing the right hon. Gentleman.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
Mr Speaker, that is quite an introduction; thank you most graciously for your lovely comments—you will no doubt be injecting some zip into my marriage.
The Government have been clear that when we leave the EU we will leave the customs union; this is a matter of fact. And when considering the end state, the Government will not be seeking to negotiate any form of customs union. The Government proposal will create a UK-EU free trade area which establishes a common rulebook for industrial goods and agricultural products. This will maintain common high standards in these areas, but also ensure that no new changes take place in future without the approval of Parliament. As a result, we will avoid friction at the borders and protect jobs and livelihoods, as well as meet our commitment to Northern Ireland. We are proposing a new business-friendly customs model with the freedom to strike new trade deals around the world, a facilitated customs arrangement.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I wish the right hon. Gentleman—my old friend, who was my former economics tutorial partner at university—a happy anniversary, but why are services less important than goods?
Mel Stride
Services are most certainly not less important than goods; they make up about 80% of the economy and we will retain greater freedoms in terms of being able to do deals around the world in that respect. But under this approach, the UK will apply its own tariffs and trade policy for goods intended for the UK and the UK’s tariffs and trade policy for goods intended for the EU. This option meets the UK’s strategic objectives for our future customs relationship with the EU.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his wedding anniversary. He has mentioned the facilitated customs arrangement, which is the point of the White Paper. In describing it, the White Paper states at paragraph 17:
“However, the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border for goods intended for the UK,”
and also says we are not expecting it to be replicated in Europe. New clause 36 directly contradicts that. I gather that there are legalisms that the people who advised on the White paper no doubt did not consider when we put in the reference to reciprocity. Now my right hon. Friend is going to give us legalisms as to why it does not matter if we take reciprocity. The political point of these amendments is to destroy the White Paper and the arrangements it proposes. If he accepts them, their supporters will come back for more. Why does he not vote against them and leave them in the tiny minority in the House of Commons, that they actually represent?
Mel Stride
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that intervention. I have very little time, but I will come on to his point. The main point is that one has to read paragraph 17a of the White Paper in its entirety to grasp its full meaning, rather than take one part of it.
I will now address the amendments before us today. New clause 1 and consequential amendment 2, as spoken to initially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), would establish a negotiating objective for the UK to maintain its participation in the EU customs union and make the commencement of parts 1 and 2 of the Bill conditional upon the outcome of those negotiations. I have already set out that the UK leaving the EU customs union is a straightforward legal consequence of leaving the EU, so the Government must reject these amendments, as well as amendment 1.
The same applies to other amendments before us today: new clauses 1, 3, 4, 11 and 12 and their various consequential amendments, as well as amendments 8, 9, 12 and 14, but that does not mean that we will not seek to enter into a business-friendly and pragmatic arrangement that maintains trade that is as frictionless as possible between the UK and the EU27 as part of our future partnership with the EU. That is because this Government fully recognise, as was set out so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, the vital importance of the EU as a trading partner that in turn supports the economy and jobs and prosperity throughout the UK.
Let me now turn to new clause 36, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), which would prevent the implementation of a new arrangement that would see HMRC accounting for duty collected by HMRC to the Government of another territory or country unless the arrangement was reciprocal. The Government have been clear in the White Paper that under their proposed facilitated customs arrangement, the UK and the EU would agree a mechanism for the remittance of relevant tariff revenue. The UK proposes a reciprocal tariff revenue formula taking account of goods destined for the UK entering via the EU and of goods destined for the EU entering via the UK. The White Paper itself states:
“The UK and the EU should agree a mechanism for the remittance of relevant tariff revenue. On the basis that this is likely to be the most robust approach, the UK proposes a tariff revenue formula, taking account of goods destined for the UK entering via the EU and goods destined for the EU entering via the UK.”
New clause 36 is consistent with the Chequers proposal and the White Paper, so the Government are content to accept it—
Mel Stride
I will not give way, no. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] I have a lot to cover, and I will not give way.
Amendment 72, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), seeks to ensure that clause 31 cannot be used to form a customs union between the UK and the EU without primary legislation. As I have set out, the Government have been clear that as we leave the European Union, we will also leave the EU’s customs union, so the Government have no objection to this enhanced level of parliamentary security—[Interruption.] I have four minutes remaining, but I will take one intervention if it is brief.
Amber Rudd
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is some concern on this side of the House regarding new clause 36. He has set out why he is prepared to accept it, but will he reaffirm for those of us on both sides of the House who have those concerns that this will not impact on the negotiating strategy of the UK Government?
Mel Stride
The negotiating strategy of the UK Government is to seek reciprocity in this respect, and that is set out very clearly in the White Paper. Importantly, amendment 72 does not interfere with the Government’s purpose. We have no objection to the principle behind the amendment and we therefore accept it.
Amendment 73, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), will remove a specific power that will enable HMRC to make regulations covering the application of VAT to goods in circumstances where we reach a customs union agreement with other customs unions or territories under clause 31. The Chequers agreement does not propose such an arrangement with the European Union as part of the future economic partnership, so the Government accept this amendment.
The effect of new clause 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), would be to ensure that Northern Ireland would not form part of a separate customs territory from Great Britain. This new clause is a straightforward statement of Government policy. It ensures that the Government will not act in a manner incompatible with the commitments made in the joint report of December last year, when we committed to protecting the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom, as well as to turning the joint report commitments into legally binding form. The Government also accept this new clause.
I shall turn now to our future VAT arrangements with the EU. New clause 2 seeks to establish a negotiating objective to maintain the UK’s participation in the EU VAT area. This would limit our ability to appropriately consider our future VAT policy, and for that reason we reject it. The Government are also making an amendment to a schedule to the Finance Act 2008. Amendment 83 is consequential on the new customs framework provided for in the Bill and is necessary to ensure certain excise penalties remain in place on EU exit.
I now wish to turn briefly to the powers in the Bill. It is critical that we have these powers to allow us to respond flexibly, but we accept that in some cases it may be considered proportionate to apply the made affirmative procedure, and I am grateful for the discussion that I have had with my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) in this regard. It is on this basis that the Government have brought forward amendments 75, 76, 79, 81 and 23, which apply the made affirmative procedure to the powers under clauses 30, 42 and 47—the powers to make general provision in relation to import duty and to deal with retained EU VAT and excise law.
Clause 25 permits disclosures for customs duty purposes and makes it clear that disclosures that would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998 are not permitted. We accept the Scottish National party’s amendments 33 and 34, which seek clarity in that regard.
Finally, we have had a full, robust and comprehensive debate today, as is entirely appropriate for a Bill of such importance. It is important for our ability to continue as one of the world’s great trading nations after our departure from the EU and to accommodate our future customs arrangement within our future economic partnership with the EU.
Anna Soubry
New clause 36 and amendment 73 are designed not to help the White Paper, but to wreck it. I am going to try to help the White Paper, which is why I seek leave to withdraw new clause 1.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure that this matter is of the greatest possible interest to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). He is engaged in an animated conversation with his right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), but I feel sure that they are intensely interested in new clause 16 and the conduct of the democratic process relating thereto. Suitable interest is now demonstrated. Tellers for the Ayes are Mr David Linden and Mrs Marian Fellows. Tellers for the Noes are Wendy Morton and Mike Freer. Now those right hon. Members will be delighted to know that they can go back to talking to and listening, with rapt attention, to each other.
Mr Speaker
I informed the House earlier—which may have been of interest to those present, and with the encouragement of the right hon. Gentleman concerned—that the Financial Secretary was celebrating his 13th wedding anniversary in the presence of his wife and his two delightful daughters in the Gallery. I now must inform the House—[Interruption.] Well, whether I must or not, I am going to: I now must inform the House that the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), has become a grandmother. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Lady, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who has become a grandfather. I must tell the House that Holly was born yesterday at 4 o’clock in the morning. Congratulations to the right hon. and learned Lady.
Clause 25
Disclosure of information
Amendment proposed: 33, page 17, line 2, leave out “Data Protection Act 1998” and insert “data protection legislation”.—(Kirsty Blackman.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
A Division was called.
Mr Speaker
Order. Colleagues will understand me if I say that I think there might be some evidence of what I might call ritualism involved in this matter, but it is up to people to find their own salvation, and I think that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is well able to do so, with help from others if he is so minded.
Mr Speaker
Order. It is very good of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that the Government had previously signalled, and I had been advised—although this is not a matter for the Chair—that they had accepted this amendment. However, when it was put to the vote, and Scottish National party voices shouted Aye, there was what might be described as an instinctive reaction of No from some quarters. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman was attempting to articulate, we are most grateful to him.
Mel Stride
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The instincts on our side are often divided, but not on this matter. We are at one in accepting amendment 33, as well as amendment 34, tabled by the Scottish National party.
Mr Speaker
Well, an absence of Tellers will suffice to achieve the objective of the Minister. Division off.
Amendment 33 agreed to.
Amendment made: 34, page 17, line 4, at end insert—
‘(8) In this section, “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018.’ —(Kirsty Blackman.)
Clause 31
Territories forming part of a customs union with UK
Amendment made: 72, page 18, line 34, at end insert—
‘(4A) In the case of a customs union between the United Kingdom and the European Union, Her Majesty may not make a declaration by Order In Council under subsection (4) unless the arrangements have been approved by an Act of Parliament.’—(Sir Bernard Jenkin.)
This amendment provides that the delegated powers under this clause may not be exercised until a proposed customs union with the European Union has been approved by a separate Act of Parliament.
Clause 32
Regulations etc
Amendments made: 75, page 19, line 15, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
“any regulations to which this subsection applies”.
Amendments 75 and 76 provide that regulations under Clause 30 (general provision for import duty purposes) cease to have effect if not approved by the House of Commons within 28 days of being made.
Amendment 76, page 19, line 21, at end insert—
“( ) Subsection (2) applies to—
(a) the first regulations under section8 (the customs tariff),
(b) any other regulations under that section the effect of which is an increase in the amount of import duty payable under the customs tariff in a standard case (within the meaning of that section), or
(c) regulations under section30 (general provision for import duty purposes).”—(Mel Stride.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 75.
Clause 39
Charge to export duty
Amendment made: 77, page 27, line 12, at end insert—
“( ) the interests of producers in the United Kingdom of the goods concerned,”.—(Mel Stride.)
This amendment requires the Treasury, when considering whether to impose export duty and the rate of export duty that ought to apply to particular goods if it is to be imposed, to have regard to the interests of UK producers of those goods.
Clause 42
EU law relating to VAT
Amendments made: 78, page 29, line 45, at end insert—
“( ) No regulations may be made under this section on or after 1 April 2023.”
This amendment provides that the powers to make regulations under Clause 42 (EU law relating to VAT) are not exercisable after 31 March 2023.
Amendment 79, page 30, line 1, leave out from “section” to end of line 2 and insert
“must be laid before the House of Commons, and, unless approved by that House before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the instrument is made, ceases to have effect at the end of that period.
‘( ) The fact that a statutory instrument ceases to have effect as mentioned in subsection (6) does not affect—
(a) anything previously done under the instrument, or
(b) the making of a new statutory instrument.
( ) In calculating the period for the purposes of subsection (6), no account is to be taken of any time—
(a) during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or
(b) during which the House of Commons is adjourned for more than 4 days.”—(Mel Stride.)
This amendment provides that regulations under Clause 42 (EU law relating to VAT) cease to have effect if not approved by the House of Commons within 28 days of being made.
Clause 47
EU law relating to excise duty
Amendment made: 80, page 32, line 47, at end insert—
“( ) No regulations may be made under this section on or after 1 April 2023.”—(Mel Stride.)
This amendment provides that the power to make regulations under Clause 47 (EU law relating to excise duty) is not exercisable after 31 March 2023.
Clause 48
Regulations under ss. 44 to 47
Amendments made: 81, page 33, line 12, after “section” insert “, or regulations under section 47,”.
This amendment provides that regulations under Clause 47 (EU law relating to excise duty) cease to have effect if not approved by the House of Commons within 28 days of being made.
Amendment 23, page 33, line 30, leave out “47” and insert “46”.—(Mel Stride.)
This amendment is consequential Amendment 81.
Clause 51
Power to make provision in relation to VAT or duties of customs or excise
Amendment made: 82, page 34, line 41, at end insert—
“( ) No regulations may be made under this section on or after 1 April 2022.”—(Mel Stride.)
This amendment provides that the power to make regulations under Clause 51 (power to make provision in relation to VAT or duties of customs or excise) is not exercisable after 31 March 2022.
Schedule 4
Dumping of goods or foreign subsidies causing injury to UK industry
Amendments made: 103, page 66, line 26, leave out from “that” to end of line 30 and insert
“it is not in the public interest to accept it.
‘(2A) In considering that, the Secretary of State must accept the TRA’s determination that requiring a guarantee in accordance with the recommendation meets the economic interest test (see paragraph 25), unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the determination is not one that the TRA could reasonably have made.”
Amendments 103 and 108 provide that the Secretary of State may reject a recommendation by the TRA to apply an anti-dumping or anti-subsidy remedy only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is not in the public interest to accept the recommendation. In deciding that, the Secretary of State must accept the TRA’s view that the economic interest test is met, unless satisfied that the TRA could not reasonably have come to that view.
Amendment 104, page 68, line 42, leave out
“such period as the TRA considers necessary”
and insert
“a period of 5 years unless the TRA considers that a lesser period is sufficient”.
Amendments 104 and 105 provide that the recommended period for the application of an anti-dumping amount or a countervailing amount is 5 years unless the TRA considers that a lesser period is sufficient to counteract the dumping, or the importation of subsidised goods, which has caused or is causing injury.
Amendment 105, page 69, line 1, leave out from beginning to “and” in line 3.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 104.
Amendment 106, page 69, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) In the case of a recommendation of such a prior date made by virtue of paragraph 19, the reference in sub-paragraph (2)(a) to a period of 5 years is to be read as a reference to a period of 5 years plus the relevant period (within the meaning of paragraph 19).”
This amendment ensures that where it is recommended that an anti-dumping amount or a countervailing amount is applied to goods from a date on or before the day of publication of the relevant public notice under clause 13, the default recommended period of 5 years for the application of the amount (provided for by Amendment 104) is extended by that prior period.
Amendment 107, page 69, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) See also paragraph 21 regarding the possibility, following a review, of extensions or variations to the period for which an anti-dumping amount or a countervailing amount applies to goods.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 105.
Amendment 108, page 70, line 12, leave out from “that” to end of line 17 and insert
“it is not in the public interest to accept it.
‘(2A) In considering that, the Secretary of State must accept the TRA’s determination that the application of an anti-dumping amount or a countervailing amount to goods in accordance with the recommendation meets the economic interest test (see paragraph 25), unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the determination is not one that the TRA could reasonably have made.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 103.
Amendment 109, page 72, line 11, leave out
“5 year period referred to in paragraph 18(2)(b)”
and insert
“period referred to in paragraph 18(2)(a)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 104 and 105.
Amendment 110, page 75, line 28, at end insert—
“(zi) the injury caused by the dumping of the goods, or the importation of the subsidised goods, to a UK industry in the goods and the benefits to that UK industry in removing that injury,”
Paragraph 25(4)(a) of Schedule 4 lists certain matters which the TRA and the Secretary of State must take account of, so far as relevant, when deciding whether the application of an anti-dumping or anti-subsidy remedy is not in the economic interest of the UK. Amendment 110 inserts an express reference in that list to the injury caused by the dumping of the goods or the subsidised imports to a UK industry in the goods and of the benefits to that industry in removing that injury.
Amendment 111, page 76, line 9, at end insert—
“(zi) the UK industry referred to in sub-paragraph (4)(a)(zi) and other producers of goods,”
Amendments 111 and 112 make clear that the references to “affected industries” in paragraph 25 of Schedule 4 continue to include the injured UK industry referred to in Amendment 110.
Amendment 112, page 76, line 10, leave out “producers and”.—(Mel Stride.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 111.
Schedule 5
Increase in imports causing serious injury to UK producers
Amendments made: 113, page 81, line 32, after “plan” insert
“or the TRA waives the requirement for the application to be accompanied by such a plan”.
This amendment enables the TRA to waive the requirement for an application for the initiation of a safeguarding investigation to be accompanied by a preliminary adjustment plan.
Amendment 85, page 84, line 12, leave out from “goods” to end of line 14 and insert
“or to specified relevant goods;
(b) that all the relevant goods, or specified relevant goods, should be subject to a quota for a specified period during which a lower rate of import duty should be applicable to imports of goods within the amount of the quota than is applicable to imports of goods outside the amount of the quota (referred to in this Schedule as a ‘provisional tariff rate quota’).
(3A) Where the TRA makes a recommendation under sub-paragraph (3)(a) in relation to relevant goods it must, as part of the recommendation, recommend to the Secretary of State how a provisional safeguarding amount applicable to those goods should be determined.”
This amendment enables the TRA, where it makes a provisional affirmative determination during a safeguarding investigation, to recommend that goods be made subject to a provisional tariff rate quota as an alternative to recommending that a provisional safeguarding amount be applied to the goods.
Amendment 86, page 84, line 16, leave out
“the application of a provisional safeguarding amount”
and insert
“applying a provisional safeguarding amount to relevant goods, or making relevant goods subject to a provisional tariff rate quota,”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 87, page 84, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
“(5) The TRA may only make a recommendation under one or other of paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (3) in relation to any particular relevant good.
(5A) The TRA may make a recommendation under paragraph (a) or (b) of sub-paragraph (3) in relation to specified relevant goods (rather than all the relevant goods) only if the recommendations which it makes under that sub-paragraph, when taken together, cover all the relevant goods.
(5B) If the TRA determines that there are one or more recommendations which it could make under sub-paragraph (3) in relation to all the relevant goods, or that there are one or more recommendations which it could make under sub-paragraph (3) in relation to specified relevant goods, it must make that recommendation or one of those recommendations (subject to sub-paragraphs (5) and (5A)).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85. It has the effect that the TRA may recommend that goods in relation to which a provisional affirmative determination is made should be subject either to a provisional safeguarding amount or a provisional tariff rate quota, but not both, although some of the goods may be subject to one type of provisional remedy whilst the rest are subject to the other type of remedy.
Amendment 88, page 84, line 35, leave out “11(3)” and insert “11(3)(a)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 89, page 84, line 41, leave out
“The recommendation referred to in paragraph 11(3)(b)”
and insert
“A recommendation under paragraph 11(3)(a)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 90, page 84, line 42, at end insert “(see paragraph 11(3A))”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 91, page 85, line 11, leave out “11(3)” and insert “11(3)(a)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 92, page 85, line 12, at end insert—
“TRA’s recommendations regarding provisional tariff rate quotas
12A (1) This paragraph applies to a recommendation by the TRA under paragraph 11(3)(b) in relation to goods.
(2) The specified period referred to in paragraph 11(3)(b)—
(a) must not exceed 200 days, and
(b) if the recommendation is accepted by the Secretary of State, must begin on the day after the date of publication of the public notice under section 13 giving effect to the recommendation.
(3) The recommendation must (in addition to the specified period) include—
(a) the TRA’s recommendation regarding—
(i) the amount of the quota,
(ii) how the quota should be allocated, and
(iii) the rates of import duty that should be applied to goods subject to the quota, and
(b) such other content as regulations may require.
(4) The TRA must consult the Secretary of State before making a recommendation regarding the allocation of the quota.
(5) The things recommended by the TRA by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(a) must be such as the TRA is satisfied are necessary to prevent serious injury which it would be difficult to repair from being caused during the investigation to UK producers of the goods.
(6) Regulations may make provision for the purposes of sub-paragraph (5) about how the things which the TRA is satisfied are necessary to prevent the serious injury described in that provision are to be determined.”
This amendment makes provision about the content of a TRA recommendation that goods should be subject to a provisional tariff rate quota. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 85 concerning the making of such a recommendation.
Amendment 93, page 85, line 14, leave out “11(3)” and insert “11(3)(a)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 94, page 85, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 95, page 85, line 40, leave out
“of a provisional remedy in respect of goods”
and insert
“for which a provisional safeguarding amount applies to goods”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 96, page 85, line 42, at end insert—
“Secretary of State’s power to subject goods to a provisional tariff rate quota
13A (1) If the TRA makes a recommendation under paragraph 11(3)(b), the Secretary of State must decide whether to accept or reject the recommendation.
(2) The Secretary of State may reject the recommendation only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that—
(a) making goods subject to a provisional tariff rate quota in accordance with the recommendation does not meet the economic interest test (see paragraph 21), or
(b) it is not otherwise in the public interest to accept the recommendation.
(3) If the recommendation is rejected, the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish notice of the TRA’s provisional affirmative determination in relation to the goods, of the recommendation and of the rejection of it,
(b) notify interested parties (see paragraph 29(3)) accordingly, and
(c) lay a statement before the House of Commons setting out the reasons for rejecting the recommendation.
(4) If the recommendation is accepted, the Secretary of State—
(a) must publish notice of the TRA’s provisional affirmative determination in relation to the goods, of the recommendation and of the acceptance of it,
(b) must notify interested parties accordingly, and
(c) is required under section 13 to make provision by public notice to give effect to the recommendation.
(5) The period for which goods are subject to a provisional tariff rate quota ceases (if it has not already expired) when the safeguarding investigation in relation to the goods terminates.”
This amendment makes provision about what the Secretary of State is to do if the TRA recommends that goods should be subject to a provisional tariff rate quota. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 85 concerning the making of such a recommendation.
Amendment 114, page 86, line 32, at end insert—
“( ) But sub-paragraph (5) is to be read as if paragraph (b) were omitted if the TRA waived the requirement for the application to initiate a safeguarding investigation in relation to the relevant goods to be accompanied by a preliminary adjustment plan.”
Paragraph 14(5)(b) of Schedule 5 to the Bill requires the TRA to be satisfied that an adjustment plan is in place before recommending to the Secretary of State, following the making of a final affirmative determination in a safeguarding investigation, that a definitive safeguarding amount should be applied or a tariff rate quota imposed. This amendment disapplies the paragraph 14(5)(b) requirement in cases where the requirement to provide a preliminary adjustment plan was waived at the point when the application was being made for the initiation of a safeguarding investigation.
Amendment 97, page 88, leave out lines 1 to 13 and insert—
“(7) If a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied to some or all of the goods as part of the same safeguarding investigation, sub-paragraph (8) applies for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2)(b) and (4)(b).
(8) The length of the specified period referred to in paragraph 14(3)(a), so far as relating to goods to which a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied, is to be treated as extended by the length of the specified period for which the TRA recommended that a provisional safeguarding remedy should be applied to them.
(9) Where the application of sub-paragraph (8) results in the length of the specified period referred to in paragraph 14(3)(a), so far as relating to goods to which a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied, exceeding 1 year, sub-paragraph (4)(b) is to be read as if references to goods were references to the goods to which the provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied.
(10) In this paragraph, references to the application of a provisional safeguarding remedy are to—
(a) applying a provisional safeguarding amount to goods, or
(b) making goods subject to a provisional tariff rate quota.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85. It explains what effect the period of a provisional tariff rate quota is to have where the TRA later recommends the application of a definitive safeguarding amount. The amendment also incorporates the existing provision about the effect of the period of a provisional safeguarding amount.
Amendment 98, page 89, leave out lines 6 to 18 and insert—
“(7) If a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied to some or all of the goods as part of the same safeguarding investigation, sub-paragraph (8) applies for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2)(b) and (5)(b).
(8) The length of the specified period referred to in paragraph 14(3)(b), so far as relating to goods to which a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied, is to be treated as extended by the length of the specified period for which the TRA recommended that a provisional safeguarding remedy should be applied to them.
(9) Where the application of sub-paragraph (8) results in the length of the specified period referred to in paragraph 14(3)(b), so far as relating to goods to which a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied, exceeding 1 year, sub-paragraph (5)(b) is to be read as if references to goods were references to the goods to which the provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied.
(10) In this paragraph, references to the application of a provisional safeguarding remedy are to—
(a) applying a provisional safeguarding amount to goods, or
(b) making goods subject to a provisional tariff rate quota.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85. It explains what effect the period of a provisional tariff rate quota is to have where the TRA later recommends that goods be subject to a tariff rate quota. The amendment also incorporates the existing provision about the effect of the period of a provisional safeguarding amount.
Amendment 115, page 91, line 8, leave out “the adjustment plan” and insert “an adjustment plan as”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 114.
Amendment 116, page 93, line 27, at end insert—
“(zi) the serious injury caused by the importation of the goods in increased quantities to UK producers of those goods and the benefits to those UK producers in removing that injury,”
Paragraph 21(3)(a) of Schedule 5 lists certain matters which the TRA and the Secretary of State must take account of, so far as relevant, when deciding whether the application of a safeguarding remedy is in the economic interest of the UK. Amendment 116 inserts an express reference in that list to the serious injury caused by the importation of the goods in increased quantities to UK producers of the goods and of the benefits to those producers in removing that injury.
Amendment 99, page 93, line 43, after “a” insert
“provisional tariff rate quota or a”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 117, page 94, line 1, at end insert—
“(zi) the UK producers referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(a)(zi) and other producers of goods,”.
Amendments 117 and 118 make clear that the references to “affected industries” in paragraph 21 of Schedule 5 continue to include the injured UK producers referred to in Amendment 116.
Amendment 118, page 94, line 2, leave out “producers and”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 117.
Amendment 100, page 96, line 18, after “a” insert
“provisional tariff rate quota or a”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 101, page 97, leave out lines 24 and 25.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 102, page 97, line 29, at end insert—
“‘provisional tariff rate quota’ has the meaning given by paragraph 11(3)(b);”.—(Mel Stride.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Schedule 8
VAT amendments connected with withdrawal from EU
Amendment proposed: 73, page 135, leave out paragraph 14.—(Craig Mackinlay.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business of the House
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
I beg to move,
That, at this day’s sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Andrea Leadsom relating to European Statutory Instruments Committee, Liaison Committee, Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 and Presentation of documents under paragraph 3(3)(b) or 17(3)(b) of schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; such questions shall include the questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
I first put on record my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and to the Procedure Committee for their careful consideration of the best way to ensure effective scrutiny of Brexit delegated legislation. There has never been a more crucial time for secondary legislation, and the Government are committed to providing the maximum consideration of it to enable our smooth exit from the EU.
The Procedure Committee’s report sets out detailed proposals to ensure the effective scrutiny of delegated legislation under—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Clerk has swivelled round to advise me. I do not wish to be unkind or unhelpful to the Leader of the House, but I think that she has slightly jumped the gun in that she has got on to the substantive matter, which in fact we have not yet reached. I think that at this stage we just need to have the verdict of the House on the business of the House motion. I think I have interpreted the Clerk correctly. We will come back to the Leader of the House and she will continue her oration momentarily.
Question put and agreed to.
European Statutory Instruments Committee
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
23:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 57 / Noes: 53 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
With the permission of the House, motions 3 to 6 will be taken together. The debate may therefore range over all four motions. Moreover, I inform the House that I have selected amendment (a), in the name of the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), to motion 3. I call the Leader of the House to move motion 3, remembering that of course all these motions are being debated together and therefore she can offer us her thoughts on any or all of them, or any combination.
Andrea Leadsom
Thank you Mr Speaker—take 2. I beg to move,
That the following Standing Order shall have effect for the remainder of this Parliament:—
(1) There shall be a select committee, called the European Statutory Instruments Committee, to examine and report on—
(i) any of the following documents laid before the House of Commons in accordance with paragraph 3(3)(b) or 17(3)(b) of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—
(a) a draft of an instrument; and
(b) a memorandum setting out both a statement made by a Minister of the Crown to the effect that in the Minister’s opinion the instrument should be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament (the negative procedure) and the reasons for that opinion, and
(ii) any matter arising from its consideration of such documents.
(2) In its consideration of a document referred to in paragraph 1(i) the committee shall include, in addition to such other matters as it deems appropriate, whether the draft instrument—
(i) contains any provision of the type specified in paragraph 1(2) or 10(2) of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in relation to which the Act requires that a draft of the instrument must be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament (the affirmative procedure);
(ii) otherwise appears to make an inappropriate use of the negative procedure; and shall report to the House its recommendation of the procedure which should apply.
(3) The committee shall have regard to the reasons offered by the Minister in support of the Minister’s opinion that the instrument should be subject to the negative procedure.
(4) Before reporting on any document, the committee shall provide to the government department concerned an opportunity to provide orally or in writing to it or any subcommittee appointed by it such further explanations as the committee may require except to the extent that the committee considers that it is not reasonably practicable to do so within the period provided by the Act.
(5) It shall be an instruction to the committee that it shall report any recommendation that the affirmative procedure should apply within the period specified by the Act.
(6) The committee shall consist of sixteen Members.
(7) The committee and any sub-committees appointed by it shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker.
(8) The committee shall have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee’s order of reference.
(9) The committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time.
(10) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee.
(11) Each such sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.
(12) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the evidence taken before such sub-committees, and the formal minutes of sub-committees.
(13) The quorum of each such sub-committee shall be two.
(14) The committee shall have power to seek from any committee of the House, including any committee appointed to meet with a committee of the Lords as a joint committee, its opinion on any document within its remit, and to require a reply to such a request within such time as it may specify.
(15) Unless the House otherwise orders each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament, or until this Standing Order lapses, whichever occurs sooner.
(16) This Standing Order, to the extent that it relates to a regulation-making power provided to the Government under sections 8, 9 or 23(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, shall lapse upon the expiry of the power to make new regulations under those sections and shall lapse entirely upon expiry of the last such remaining power.
Mr Speaker
With this we shall consider the following:
Motion 4—Liaison Committee—
That the Order of the House of 6 November 2017 (Liaison Committee: Membership) be amended, in the second paragraph, by inserting, in the appropriate place, “European Statutory Instruments”.
Motion 5—Additional Salaries—
That the Order of the House of 19 March 2013 (Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009) be amended, in paragraph (1)(a), by inserting, in the appropriate place, “the European Statutory Instruments Committee”.
Motion 6— European Union Withdrawal (Documents)—
That where, under Paragraph 3(3)(b) or 17(3)(b) of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, any document is to be laid before this House, the delivery of a copy of the document to the Votes and Proceedings Office on any day during the existence of a Parliament shall be deemed to be for all purposes the laying of it before the House; and the proviso to Standing Order No. 159 shall not apply to any document laid in accordance with this Order.
Andrea Leadsom
I first put on record my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and the Procedure Committee for their careful consideration of the best way to ensure effective scrutiny of Brexit delegated legislation. There has never been a more crucial time for secondary legislation, and this Government are committed to providing the maximum consideration of it to enable our smooth exit from the EU.
The Procedure Committee’s report sets out detailed proposals to ensure the effective scrutiny of delegated legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which received Royal Assent on 26 June 2018. Following the Committee’s interim report of 1 November 2017, the Chair of the Procedure Committee tabled amendments to the withdrawal Bill in Committee of the whole House that the House accepted without Division. I subsequently tabled draft motions on the Order Paper to give as much notice of the potential Standing Order changes as possible.
Following the launch of its inquiry in September 2017, the Committee took evidence from a range of parties, including me in May. I pay tribute to the members of the Committee and thank them for taking the time to input into this important new procedure.
In its report last week, the Procedure Committee set out its final recommendations, including updated proposed Standing Orders for a new Committee—the European Statutory Instruments Committee. As the Procedure Committee set out, the new Committee’s remit will be to examine each Government proposal for a negative procedure statutory instrument and to recommend whether it should be upgraded to the affirmative procedure, whereby the proposed legislation has to be approved by a vote of both Houses.
The report published last Monday includes a carefully considered set of recommendations for how the new Committee should function, together with a number of factors that the new Committee may want to consider when deciding whether the instrument ought to be subject to the affirmative procedure. It will be for the Committee to take forward that work, but I commit that the Government will work constructively and closely with the new Committee’s members and staff to ensure that it functions as effectively as possible. I have noted the suggestion that the European Statutory Instruments Committee should not be expected to make a substantive report with recommendations until the September sitting at the earliest.
The Government confirmed in a written statement on 4 July that the Government
“will not lay negative statutory instruments requiring sifting until the necessary procedures for establishing the new Committee in the Commons and the expansion of the remit of the House of Lords’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee are concluded. However, the Government is starting to publish final drafts of the negative statutory instruments that require sifting (‘proposed negatives’) on Gov.uk as they are ready. This is to increase transparency and to allow Parliament and the public to have early sight of the forthcoming legislation.”
I would also like to take this opportunity to assure the House that, where a Minister does not agree with the recommendations of the Committee, the Minister will be prepared to appear in front of the Committee to clarify the rationale for that.
I turn to amendment (a), which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and other members of the Commons Reference Group on Representation and Inclusion. Let me start by saying that I have great sympathy for what is proposed. It is absolutely right that we do all we can to encourage equal representation in the decisions that the House takes. It is important, however, that we recognise that the amendment would result in the European Statutory Instruments Committee being the only Committee subject to rules on the gender of its members.
The effect of the amendment would be that, whenever a vacancy became available on the Committee, only a Member of the same gender as the Member who had left the Committee would be eligible to join it. Some might consider that there is a risk of such a move creating difficulties with maintaining full membership, particularly for the smaller parties, if appropriate candidates are not forthcoming. I am sure that each party has seen the amendment and will want to do what it can to ensure a good gender balance when selecting its membership of the Committee, but the amendment, although it has my personal support, is for the House to decide upon.
The new Committee will play an important role in the coming months, and provided that the proposed changes to Standing Orders are agreed, I look forward to charting its progress. I commend the motions to the House.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in support of not only motion 3, but amendment (a), to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred. I speak on behalf of a number of Members from all parties, including the smaller parties to which she referred. It is important to look at not only the work of the new Committee, but its make-up. Before I do that, however, let me commend the work of the Procedure Committee and my right hon. Friend, because this must be one of the most important Committees that Parliament has set up in recent times.
It is right that we think about the make-up of the Committee as well as its function. The amendment would ensure that the Committee had balanced representation. It is widely felt that it is important that we have balance when it comes to talking about all things to do with Brexit, and the amendment could be a way of putting that rhetoric into practice. Indeed, evidence given to the Women and Equalities Committee about the role of women in Parliament underlined all parties’ support for ensuring that women play an active role in all aspects of parliamentary life. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) told the Committee, rightly, that Parliament would be a better place if 50% of MPs were women. I think that nothing could be better than ensuring that 50% of the members of this Committee are women, because it will be considering issues of profound importance to the future of our country.
We spend a lot of time in this place telling businesses the importance of having more women on boards and reporting on their gender pay gap, for example. We ask them to do a lot of things that they might think we are not prepared to do here. Following the advice of “The Good Parliament” guide—it was written a number of years ago but is still a bible for reforming this place—I ask Members from all parties to support this small step, which would ensure female representation on the Committee from day one. I gently remind Members that that was not the case for the membership of a number of Select Committees at the beginning of this Parliament, so to assume that that will happen does not necessarily reflect what happened in the past.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am happy to accept most of what the Leader of the House said and I am inclined to support the amendment. I hope that the House will forgive many of us on the Opposition Benches if we first want to see all these assurances of fair play put into practice, because many such assurances have not been, in the case of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and associated legislation. We will take the Government at their word just now, but we will be watching carefully not only what goes to the Committee, but what does not. We will be holding the Government firmly to account.
With regard to the amendment, I understand the Government’s reluctance to set a precedent. We must recognise that because this Parliament is nowhere near gender-balanced, we will have a problem if we try to make all its Committees gender-balanced, because women MPs would have to do the work of two men MPs. Well, a lot of people might suggest—[Interruption.] You’re getting ahead of me, as Ronnie Corbett used to say. That would create difficulties if it was applied to every Committee at once, but why not introduce such a measure, one Committee at a time, to see how it works?
I am intrigued by the Leader of the House’s concern that there might be times when nobody of the correct gender puts themselves forward for membership of the Committee. That implies that Members volunteer for Committees, rather than simply being told by their party Whips which ones they will be members of—I will need to have words with my own party Whip about that in the future. The proposal does not work for smaller parties, however, because if a smaller party has only one place on a Committee, that Member will, generally speaking, be either 100% male or 100% female. However, the bigger parties will have more members of the Committee, and a much bigger number of MPs to draw from. I would be concerned if no men or no women from either of the two largest parties in the House were willing to put in what looks like a fairly modest time commitment to ensure that secondary legislation for Brexit is scrutinised properly.
There is no issue with the fact that Brexit will involve a lot of secondary legislation, but there is a major issue with some of the things that the Government intend to use that secondary legislation for. I would have thought that anyone who is interested in ensuring that this House tells the Government what to do, rather than the other way around, would also ensure that no party would struggle to find Members to take up places on the Committee.
I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider her opposition to the amendment. We should be looking to introduce the principle of gender balance in fairly minor ways, over time, especially when there are those who say that it is not possible to do it all in one go. With that slight caveat, we will support the motion, but we will be watching carefully what happens to the Government’s assurances in the coming months.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Little did I realise that the motion on the European Statutory Instruments Committee would attract so much attention at this time of the evening. It was surely the main reason why we all trundled down to attend Parliament today.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, and as a member of the Procedure Committee, I can say that it was a great pleasure for me to take evidence from her, the shadow Leader of the House and many representatives from different parties. The proposal that the Procedure Committee came up with was extremely laudable, and I believe that it was welcomed as a cross-party amendment to the repeal Bill in Committee.
However, I am afraid that I must object to amendment (a), because it is politically correct codswallop. I am concerned about setting a precedent for quotas. As a Conservative, I have always opposed quotas. As a gay man, I ask why there is no mention of representation of LGBT Members. Why do Scottish National party Members not object to the lack of a requirement for regional representation? Why, dare I ask, is there no mention of the age profiles of Members? I do not see how somebody’s gender improves their ability to scrutinise secondary legislation. Although it is right that everybody should be encouraged, the amendment states
“at least seven shall be women”.
Why cannot there be a Committee that consists entirely of women? What would be wrong with that, if that was the will of the House and those Members wished to put themselves forward?
David Linden
Are there any past examples of a Committee of the House of which all the members were men?
Mr Wragg
There may well be—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may be better furnished with the facts at this late hour than I am. As a member of the Education Committee, I am in the minority in many ways, because its membership is seven women and four men. Indeed, the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) chairs consists of eight women and three men.
Mrs Miller
My hon. Friend is making an eloquent argument, but he may want to observe that women are not a minority; we are a majority in this country. We are simply trying to have a level playing field.
Mr Wragg
A level playing field can be achieved without quotas. With that, I conclude my remarks and object to the amendment.
Amendment proposed: (a), in paragraph (6), at end add
‘of whom at least seven shall be women and at least seven shall be men.’.—(Mrs Miller.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents in the Lewes constituency.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Lewes,
Declare that the “Home Education - Call for Evidence and revised DfE guidance” has been written following significant consultation with local authorities and no consultation whatsoever with the home education community; further that the consultation is consequently for little more than show as an intention to implement the content has already been stated: further that it seeks to encourage local authorities to breach the ECHR Article 8 and the GDPR; and further that the report provides no accessible means for a parent to address ultra vires behaviour by their local authority, where many of those authorities already act routinely in an ultra vires manner.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002215]
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
This is the petition of Mrs Melanie Ealing and constituents of New Forest West, who similarly complain that the home education community was not properly consulted and similarly requests
that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the New Forest West,
Declare that the “Home Education - Call for Evidence and revised DfE guidance” has been written following significant consultation with local authorities and no consultation whatsoever with the home education community; further that the consultation is consequently for little more than show as an intention to implement the content has already been stated: further that it seeks to encourage local authorities to breach the ECHR Article 8 and the GDPR; and further that the report provides no accessible means for a parent to address ultra vires behaviour by their local authority, where many of those authorities already act routinely in an ultra vires manner.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002207]
Whole Company Pay Policy
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I start by placing on the record the fact that as of last month I am the owner of a single share in Sainsbury’s. It was my golden ticket to attending its annual general meeting earlier this week—but more about that parallel universe experience later in my speech.
First, I turn to fat cat Thursday. By lunchtime on Thursday 4 January, the top chief executives in the UK had earned more than their average employees would over the course of the entire year. The chief executives of FTSE 100 companies earn an eye-watering £898 per hour, which results in astronomical figures more like telephone numbers than salaries. I have no qualms about those at the top being paid well. I am not calling for a salary cap or a widespread cut to chief executives’ pay. My call is far simpler: for consistency, parity and fairness, for the importance of the contribution of those at the bottom being recognised in tandem with the contribution of those at the top. Put simply, I am calling for organisations to determine the pay and reward schemes of all their employees in one whole company pay policy.
I would like to discuss the common themes of pay ratios, remuneration committees and the living wage—the most wonderful of ideas that is disappointingly littered with loopholes. I would also like to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister an organisation that, in my opinion, epitomises all that is wrong when a company does not have a whole company pay policy. But let us start with pay ratios.
In 2002, the pay of a FTSE 100 CEO was an extortionate 79 times that of their average employee. Fast forward 16 years to 2018, and it has sky rocketed to 150 times. Let me put that into perspective. These are chief executives who are paid an estimated 132 times more than a police officer, 140 times more than a teacher, 165 times more than a nurse, and an astronomical 312 times more than a care worker. I am in no position to prescribe the highest acceptable pay ratio, but there can surely be no doubt in anyone‘s mind that those ratios are unacceptable, unjust and unfair.
Of course, there have been some developments in public policy. From 1 July 2019, companies with more than 250 employees will be obliged to reveal and justify their pay ratios. That can only be a good thing, because it will directly pressure the companies with the most extreme pay ratios to explain and to change them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for raising such an important issue, at a very late hour. Does she agree that, while raising pay scales sounds good, the fact that people are no longer paid for breaks, and the fact that other bonus schemes no longer operate, means less in the pockets of workers? Does she agree that such contracts should no longer be forced on any existing staff, at Sainsbury’s or, indeed, anywhere else?
Siobhain McDonagh
I completely agree. The downside of the living wage is that companies have often sought to recoup some of their funds by reducing the conditions of long-standing members of staff.
Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to determine correctly the pay ratios of companies that outsource their low-paid roles to look more equal than they actually are and what mechanisms the Government intend to introduce to ensure that such extreme ratios do not occur in the first place? May I suggest that he note the example of Sweden—which, incidentally, is ranked one of the happiest countries in the world— where companies with big pay gaps face fines if they fail to close them?
It is not just extortionate salaries that generate these unjust pay ratios, but extraordinary incentive schemes, often reserved for those who sit at the very top of organisations. The Companies Act 2006 made it clear that non-executive board members were responsible for all stakeholders, rather than just for shareholders, and that, of course, includes all staff. However, it is still commonplace for many organisations to fail to recognise that company performance is based on the contribution of all staff, not just those at the very top. I have no problem with the retention of incentive pay for executives, but such incentive schemes should be available to all staff on the same terms. Why should any organisation have a rule for some employees that is not a rule for all?
In December 2017, the Financial Reporting Council produced its proposed revisions of the UK corporate governance code, requiring remuneration committees to
“oversee remuneration and workforce policies and practices, taking these into account when setting the policy for director remuneration.”
That seems to me to be a common-sense way of providing sensible alignment between workforce and executive pay. It is a straightforward, practical, whole company pay policy.
The need for such a policy becomes all the clearer when we consider exploitative “pay between assignment” contracts. The theory behind such contracts is a guarantee of a basic level of pay when an agency worker is between assignments and thus out of work, but, in reality, staff are often kept on the contracts even when they have been working in the same job for years without such a gap “between assignments”. Let us take, for example, an Argos distribution centre where agency staff earn £7.50 an hour, while core staff can earn up to £11.86 per hour—63% more than their agency counterparts—despite performing exactly the same role with the same responsibilities and despite having worked at the organisation for the same length of time. Repealing these contracts has been continuously recommended by parliamentary Committees and even the Taylor report. I understand that the Government are currently deciding whether to subject these contracts to greater enforcement, but I completely agree with the Communication Workers Union that the need instead is for these contracts to be abolished once and for all.
Then there is the issue of the national living wage, referred to by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). In theory it is an excellent idea, but in practice it is a deceptive tool used by some of the biggest organisations to cut terms, conditions and salaries. When it was introduced, former Chancellor George Osborne declared that Britain would get a pay rise. The infuriating reality is that a huge number of high-profile organisations have instead used its introduction to save funds by negatively impacting their most long-standing staff—their basic salary goes up, but to the detriment of the rest of their working conditions. These organisations should be named and shamed: I am referring to the likes of Marks & Spencer, B&Q, Zizzi, Ginsters, Le Pain Quotidien, Caffè Nero and countless others that have sought legislative loopholes against the spirit of the law.
Put simply, there should be more fairness. If someone is promised a pay rise, they should receive a pay rise. Organisations can dress it up however they like, but we, as politicians of all parties, need to call it out. That is exactly what I am doing today.
I have called this debate because I believe I have found an organisation that epitomises all the problems I have described so far, and more. Since 1869, Sainsbury’s has been a pillar of the great British high street. Over 148 years, it has established a reputation as a leading retailer that looks after, and out for, its colleagues and customers. But the organisation’s lack of a whole company pay policy has led to the most disgraceful discrepancies, whereby new contracts will see thousands of shop-floor staff have their salaries slashed while senior staff take home bonuses worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. If shop-floor staff do not sign these unscrupulous new contracts, they will be forced to resign. Here is the reality: 9,000 loyal and long-standing Sainsbury’s staff will see their wages fall by up to £3,000 per year by 2020. They will lose their paid breaks; their Sunday premium pay will be removed; the nightshift will be shortened; and their bonus scheme will go.
Some might argue that this is an unavoidable cost-cutting exercise for a key player in the struggling retail sector. Sainsbury’s itself argues that it is an exercise in fairness, ensuring that all colleagues doing the same role are paid the same. But I would argue that this is an organisation crying out for a whole company pay policy owing to those at the top being treated independently from those at the bottom. Either that, or I have misunderstood the definition of fairness, because while Sainsbury’s has scrapped the bonus scheme for its shop-floor staff, it has, astonishingly, awarded an eye-watering bonus of £427,000 to CEO Mike Coupe as part of his £3.4 million pay packet. No wonder he sings “We’re in the money.”
But this is no laughing matter. Many of these 9,000 staff have given decades of dedication to this organisation and tell me that they simply cannot afford to continue working there. While their salaries crumble, their bills, their mortgages and their rent are all still the same at the end of each month. I wonder if Sainsbury’s remuneration committee gave even a moment’s thought to these staff when they signed off their executive bonuses. Losing up to £3,000 per year might not seem like much to Mr Coupe when his pay packet equates to his taking home over three times that amount every single day, but for the thousands of staff losing out and their families every penny really does count.
I have done all I possibly can to raise the case of these staff with the Sainsbury’s board, which I expected, at the very least, to show some regret at the despair it is causing. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will let you be the judge of how regretful they are. Take the meeting I had with Rebecca Reilly, group head of communications, and Simon Roberts, retail and operations director, where I was astonished to hear the most long-standing colleagues who are losing thousands of pounds a year described as “anomalies”. Or take chief executive officer Mike Coupe, who, after his recent bruising session with the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, refused to speak to me and raced away down the Portcullis House corridor. Or take the chaotic scenes at Sainsbury’s annual general meeting where, I am bewildered to report, my every move was followed by two senior Sainsbury’s staff.
After the meeting, I decided to use the opportunity to speak directly to the board members. This was their chance to justify their decision to me in person. Can you imagine how furious I was to see them hurried out of the room as I approached, surrounded by colleagues acting like bodyguards? I do not think I am scary, and I certainly do not think I am significant, but Sainsbury’s shop floor staff are significant and Sainsbury’s should be absolutely ashamed of the disgraceful disloyalty that they are showing these staff. Take Michelle, who has worked at Sainsbury’s for more than 20 years and stands to lose over £1,000 a year. She says that she has always loved her job, worked with amazing colleagues and been a proud and loyal employee for a good employer. That is why she found it so hard to speak out. Her petition on change.org has now been signed by 125,000 colleagues and customers from across the country.
Or take Mr and Mr Wilson, who have given over three decades of service to Sainsbury’s between them and yet anticipate that they will lose almost £6,000 a year as a family. Or, finally, take Mrs Taylor, who works in one of the 150 branches of Argos that are now located inside Sainsbury’s stores. Once the new contracts are introduced, Mrs Taylor can expect her hourly pay to be £1.20 less than that of her Sainsbury’s colleagues, despite working in the same store. That is what makes Sainsbury’s insistence that this is an operation in fairness so much less believable.
Could the need for a whole company pay policy be any clearer? What is needed is a policy where the pay for all staff is decided collectively at one point in time by one committee in the organisation. The consultation on these new contracts at Sainsbury’s is coming to a close. Hundreds of MPs have signed letters of support, and thousands upon thousands of colleagues and customers have spoken out. Even the Prime Minister has expressed concern. Perhaps the only hope left for these loyal staff members is a strong statement of support from the Minister this evening.
After a hard day’s work, the very least that an employee deserves is to take home a fair wage that is proportionate to that of their colleagues. Without a whole company pay policy, organisations such as Sainsbury’s can justify treating each level of their staff hierarchy independently and rewarding the minority at the top at the expense of those at the bottom. The damaging decomposition of workers’ rights under this Government has been widely felt. The enforcement of whole company pay policies would be the first step back to a country where hard-working employees can expect to receive a fair deal at work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this evening’s debate. This is an important subject, and I commend her passion and her extensive campaigning on behalf of lower-paid workers in our economy. However, I know that she wants more than to be commended by me; she wants answers to her questions. I shall do my best to provide them. I recognise, and sympathise with, her view that executive pay in this country too often seems to exist in a bubble that is disconnected from the pay and experiences of ordinary working people.
I accept the hon. Lady’s numbers. We saw a staggering quadrupling in the average pay of FTSE 100 chief executive officers from the late 1990s to 2011 from just under £1 million a year to more than £4 million. I think that this has been imported from America, where the differences are even larger. Executive pay levels have largely stabilised since then, but shareholders and the wider society have increasingly questioned how such dramatic levels of reward can be justified, both in terms of individual performance and in relation to a company’s pay policy as a whole. The Government share that concern. We are not against CEOs being well paid for doing what is certainly a hugely demanding an important job. We accept that they have a lot of responsibility. For example, if part-time workers are included, Sainsbury’s has 180,000 people, and any one person who is responsible for 180,000 people certainly deserves rewarding well. I do not think that anyone would dispute that.
Jim Shannon
The point that the hon. Lady made with passion is that workers who have given effort, commitment and loyalty to a firm should be rewarded. The whole workforce should be rewarded, not just one person.
Richard Harrington
I absolutely agree, but pay is earned for several reasons. Hard work is definitely one of them. I am not comparing ourselves, but we are all here at 11.40 pm, so no one could say that we are not working hard. The dispute would come from the second reason for pay, which is how well someone is working and the their responsibilities. I would not ask the hon. Gentleman to intervene to say how well he thinks I am doing, but I certainly know that he and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden do a good job. I am not making light of the situation; I mean that reward is partly based on how well someone is doing and partly on how hard they work, but part of it is about responsibility. We would all agree that chief executives have a lot of responsibility, and they should not have job security because they are putting themselves on the line for workers, shareholders, banks or whomever it might be. This is a question of extent and of how much reward is performance related and how much of it is a basic salary. I hope that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) do not think that I am trying to make light of this, because there is a significant issue here.
We may disagree on this, but I think the answer lies with transparency and accountability in how executive pay is set and in how it fits with wider employee pay and incentives. The Government have introduced major reforms on executive pay, and the first package in 2013 and the second package approved by Parliament just last week are important. The 2013 reforms compelled quoted companies to disclose each year the total pay and benefits of their CEOs and directors and to explain how that relates to company and individual performance. For the first time—this is important—we gave shareholders a legally binding vote on a company’s executive pay policy, with which all payments to directors must comply. Taken together, the two reforms have forced companies to be much more rigorous and transparent in their approach to executive pay.
However, more needed to be done, in particular to increase transparency and accountability in how pay at the top relates to pay and reward across the rest of the company. It is vital that companies demonstrate cohesion and a comprehensible line of sight between executive pay and the pay of other employees. They are all part of the company, and part of its success, and a confident organisation should be willing and able to explain how its approach to pay is consistent across all its employees. That is why the Government are now implementing major new statutory and code-based reform measures on executive pay as part of a wider package of corporate governance reform.
The headline reform measure—this is directly relevant to the hon. Lady’s speech—is to require all quoted companies to disclose and explain the ratio of their CEO’s pay to both the median average and the quartile pay of their UK employees. The pay ratio statement must include an explanation of
“whether, and if so why, the company believes the median pay ratio for the relevant financial year is consistent with the pay, reward and progression policies for the company’s UK employees taken as a whole.”
That will allow shareholders, employees and other interested parties to see how pay in the boardroom relates to wider employee pay throughout the company and, importantly, whether and how the directors of the company believe the differentials are justified. This is not just about employees, important though they are, because shareholders have strongly backed the introduction of pay ratio reporting and will be watching closely both the figures and the explanations, which they have made clear must be meaningful and relevant.
UK shareholders are increasingly vocal and assertive in holding companies to account on executive pay and other issues, which the Government support. The Government requested the Investment Association to establish the world’s first public register of shareholder dissent, so that there is a publicly monitored record of companies that receive more than 20% votes against executive pay packages. Halfway through the first year, there have been 140 significant shareholder rebellions on pay and other matters—more than the total for the whole of last year.
The Government have asked the Financial Reporting Council to consult on a number of new executive pay provisions in the UK corporate governance code, including a requirement for remuneration committees to explain what engagement with the wider workforce has taken place on how executive pay aligns with wider company policy. I am pleased to say that this new measure forms part of the revised corporate governance code published by the FRC earlier today—this is very topical—as part of a wider package of corporate governance reforms that require companies to put in place one or more of either a director appointed from the workforce, a formal workforce advisory panel or a designated non-executive director. It is complicated, but we are making developments. Companies will have to report on how they have had regard to the interests of employees. The statutory instrument was approved by Parliament last week and requires large companies to report each year on how they have had regard to the interests of their employees and on how it has influenced the decision making of directors.
All these measures will be in place from the start of January 2019, and I take the opportunity to thank everyone in this House, particularly the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and the all-party parliamentary group on corporate governance, for their constructive contributions to this agenda over the past two years.
Before I finish, I will address some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden.
Siobhain McDonagh
Will the Minister address the issue of pay between assignment contracts?
Richard Harrington
I will do my best but, if the hon. Lady is not satisfied with my answer because of the time available, I would be very happy to meet her to discuss this complex subject.
The question of agency staff being paid less despite doing the same work are known as assignment contracts, as I am sure you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker—you are omnipotent and know everything, or most things, I have ever asked you about. The hon. Lady referred to that as subcontracting some of the lower-paid workers. The Government are looking into that as part of our response to the Taylor review. There is a specific consultation on agency workers in response to that. I know that might not sound like the comprehensive answer the hon. Lady wants, but it is work in progress and I suggest she wait a little before having the meeting, when I will be happy to go through it with her.
Mr Simon Roberts, the retail and operations director of Sainsbury’s, wrote a very comprehensive letter to the Government proudly saying that Sainsbury’s has met the hon. Lady on several occasions. Mr Roberts clearly has not satisfied her, but he has written a four-page letter to us about it. At least Sainsbury’s has had the guts to meet the hon. Lady, and I am sorry that she is not satisfied.
Sainsbury’s has 185,000 employees, and the hon. Lady’s main point is that it is unfair of Sainsbury’s to continue paying its CEO a bonus while cutting bonuses and other variable pay for the rest of its 185,000 staff. The company says it has taken steps to improve its pay offer and specifically to put in place measures to support the staff most affected by the proposed changes, which of course I welcome. I wonder whether the hon. Lady is aware of that.
Siobhain McDonagh
I am completely unaware of what those measures are, because I assure the Minister that at the annual general meeting last week there was a bullish contribution from the chair of the board saying it had done nothing wrong and that it is equalising pay. My concern is that 9,000 of Sainsbury’s most long-standing members of staff will be getting a pay cut from 2020.
Richard Harrington
I will send Mr Simon Roberts a copy of the Hansard record of this debate tomorrow and say that the hon. Lady is not satisfied with that answer. I will ask what the details of the improved pay offer are and what measures have been put in place to support the staff most affected by the proposed changes. On the face of it, I welcome what has been done, but it may be that this is not exactly as Sainsbury’s says it is. The company says it is committed to increasing its hourly rate of pay from £8 to £9.20 an hour from September and it has promised top-up payments from 18 months to support what it says are the “small minority” of Sainsbury’s employees whose loss of certain benefits will have seen them worse-off overall under the pay deal.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Lady again for giving the House the opportunity to debate these important issues. It is absolutely right that companies approach pay and reward holistically and that executive pay aligns with wider pay and reward. I think the new reforms that Parliament has approved will help in that regard, while keeping the UK a world leader in corporate governance.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ring-fenced Bodies and Core Activities) (Amendment) Order 2018
(6 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ring-fenced Bodies and Core Activities) (Amendment) Order 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
From 1 January 2019, the ring-fencing regime will require the structural separation of core retail banking from investment banking for UK banks with retail deposits of more than £25 billion. Ring-fencing was the central recommendation of the Independent Commission on Banking, chaired by Sir John Vickers, which the Government accepted and legislated for via the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. It will support financial stability by insulating retail ring-fenced banks’ core services, whose continuous provision is essential to the economy—retail and small business deposits and payment services—from shocks originating elsewhere in the global financial system. It means that banks that provide those essential services become simpler and more resolvable, so core services can keep running even if a ring-fenced bank or its group fails.
As well as ensuring that UK taxpayers are not on the hook for bank failures, ring-fencing should mean fewer and less severe financial crises in future, which will benefit the whole economy. Details of the regime are set out in secondary legislation passed in 2014. As part of restructuring to comply with the ring-fencing regime, banking groups may be required to move some accounts from one legal entity to another—for example, they may need to move a retail depositor’s account into a new ring-fenced bank. However, some of the holders of those bank accounts are subject to financial sanctions that prohibit the movement of any funds that said account holders own, hold or control. The conflict with financial sanctions regimes means that at present some banking groups are unable to comply fully with the ring-fencing legislation.
The order resolves the otherwise conflicting requirements between a ring-fencing regime and financial sanction regimes by amending the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ring-fenced Bodies and Core Activities) Order 2014. It amends the definition of a “core deposit” so that accounts whose account holders are or have been subject to financial sanctions, as defined in section 143(4) of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, at any time in the past six months, are no longer included in the definition. That means that banking groups will not be required to move retail accounts whose holders are subject to financial sanctions into ring-fenced banks. Banking groups will have six months from the removal of sanctions to remove retail accounts of those account holders previously subject to sanctions inside the ring fence.
The order will ensure that banking groups that cannot otherwise comply fully with the ring-fencing regime owing to sanctions legislation are not deemed non-compliant under the ring-fencing legislation. The amendment does not alter the location and height of the ring fence and nor does it alter the timetable for ring-fencing: banks in scope must be ring-fenced by 1 January 2019. Together with the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority, we are monitoring their progress closely.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies.
As we approach the 10th anniversary of the financial crisis, this order is a timely reminder that the regulatory effort to ensure that we have a safer, more robust banking system is still a work in progress. Creating safeguards to prevent a repeat of the events of 2008 are of the highest priority, given the devastating impact of that crisis on people’s lives and the wider British economy, the legacy of which is still felt by many families today.
Few would disagree that there is still significant work to be done to rebuild trust in the banking sector and to create a framework of institutions that serve both customers and market participants fairly and effectively. Ring-fencing is a central part of that project. Given its scale and complexity, it is perhaps understandable that areas have arisen during the implementation phase that require further amendments to the statute book. Banks should clearly not be put in the position where it seems that there is a conflict between complying with the letter of the law on ring-fencing and with the rules on financial sanctions, so the Opposition support the measure.
Significant sums of money may be involved. According to the Government’s written statement in February 2018, up to £1.4 billion flowed through the UK in breach of financial sanctions in 2017. Worryingly, that figure is a correction to a previous parliamentary statement that wildly underestimated the figure at just £117 million. Given the geopolitical environment, which the Minister knows only too well from events in his constituency, the Government must do better to instil confidence that they can clamp down on dirty money coming into our financial system.
I have two questions for the Minister about the order. First, it dictates that banks will have up to six months to move accounts over after sanctions have been lifted. Can he shed some light on how that timeframe was decided on, as it seems rather generous? Secondly, the explanatory memorandum states that the Treasury will consult with affected banks, in tandem with the regulators, on their implementation plans. Can the Minister provide further information about how the order will be monitored for compliance purposes, to ensure that the affected banks have moved accounts in the allotted time?
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The SNP cautiously welcomes the order, but feels that it could go further. As the powers to tackle tax evasion and avoidance largely lie here, we do not feel that the UK Government are being proactive enough to gather those funds into the public purse. As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said, the funds represent a significant amount of money that all our constituents should see the benefit of.
It is positive that banks will be able to effectively comply with the ring-fencing regime and provide crucial regulatory protection for consumers, but we are concerned that the UK Government need to improve the sanctions regime. That cannot wait until 2021 when public services are being cut. Why will the Minister wait until 2021, which is quite some time from now, to review the measure? We may learn lessons more quickly than that. It would make sense to review it and ensure that we are learning, rather than to wait and pick up the pieces afterwards.
In the context of the legislation, which has territorial extent in Scotland, what consultation has been done with the Scottish Government? Our robust anti-avoidance rules on devolved taxes where we have control are among the toughest in the world. We would like the UK Government to follow our lead and crack down on some of the current tax avoidance. We are serious about doing that in the areas that we control, and we would like there to be a consistent approach that uses best practice.
Although the measure is a welcome step in the right direction, the UK Government must take more action and accept the criticisms of the sanctions regime that were raised some months ago in the Committee of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018—a much colder room than this one. They should also tackle dirty money as well as tax avoidance and evasion, because huge sums of money are still being laundered through Scottish limited partnerships. I appreciate that that consultation closes on 23 July, but it would be useful to hear anything that the Minister can tell us about when action will be taken following the conclusion of that review.
John Glen
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the order, and for the points made by the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde and for Glasgow Central. We have engaged with the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority on the wording and the extent of the order, which proposes to amend the ring-fencing legislation, and feedback has been positive.
The six-month timeframe was chosen to ensure that banks have enough time to make the necessary transfer; it was the result of a practical conversation with the regulators. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central asked why we are waiting until 2021 to review the instrument. That leaves enough time for the PRA and the Treasury to identify potential issues and consult on any changes.
Some wider points were raised when we were in Committee in this room previously. I acknowledge that there are ongoing concerns about various aspects of the sanctions and anti-money-laundering regime. They are without the scope of this conversation, but I am happy to address any specific concerns by letter; that would be more appropriate than to try to answer them conclusively now. I hope I have satisfied Opposition Members, and I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. This draft statutory instrument was laid before Parliament on 2 July. On 21 June we published a statement of intent and I made a statement to the House on the European Union settlement scheme. The statement of intent sets out details of how EU citizens and their family members will be able to obtain settled status in the UK. It also sets out how the process will be straightforward and streamlined, and that we will support applicants to get the right outcome.
EU citizens will need to meet three core criteria to be granted status under the EU settlement scheme: proving their identity, showing that they are resident in the UK, and declaring whether they have any criminal convictions. The draft regulations form part of the legislative underpinning for that scheme.
As is currently the case with applications for documents under EU law, the draft regulations will enable us to require EU citizens and their family members to provide a facial photograph as part of their application for status under the settlement scheme. We need that to check their identity and to confirm that the passport or ID card that they have provided belongs to that person, which will help us to identify and to deter any fraudulent application, and to process applications as quickly as possible.
As is also currently the case in the immigration system, non-EU family members applying under the scheme will be required to enrol their fingerprints, unless they already hold a biometric residence card. Recording biometric data and biographical information is important because we can confirm a person’s biographical details and fix them to their unique biometric identifiers, establishing a reliable link between holders and their status. That also allows us to check against existing records to ensure that the person who applies is not known to the police by another identity.
I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that the EU settlement scheme will deliver on our commitments to administer a straightforward process. We are designing the online application form so that it is short, simple and user-friendly. It will be accessible by computer, tablet or smartphone, with clear guidance every step of the way. EU citizens’ facial photographs will therefore be captured digitally as part of the application process. Those non-EU family members who do not already hold a biometric residence card will need to attend one of our application centres to enrol their fingerprints and facial image.
Approval of the draft regulations is an important step in getting the EU settlement scheme up and running. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
The Labour party opposes this draft statutory instrument. Significant powers to collect biometric data have been too widely defined and the regulations have been drawn up without regard to vulnerable groups, adequate consultation or the Brexit negotiations.
Our first area of concern is the scope of the powers in the draft regulations. Will the Minister clarify what data the Home Office will collect, and from whom, under this statutory instrument? The EU settlement scheme says that EU citizens will be required to provide a facial image, but does not mention other biometric data. Will she confirm that EU citizens applying for settled status will not be required to supply, beyond a facial photograph, fingerprints or other biometric data? Will she also confirm that the draft regulations do not allow any changes to those requirements without coming back to Parliament? Will she confirm that the Home Office will not have the power to collect biometric data beyond fingerprints for non-EU family members of EU citizens?
The Home Office has repeatedly emphasised that the application process will be streamlined, user-friendly and entirely digital. Will the Minister confirm that requiring applicants to provide biometric data, including fingerprints, means that an application cannot be completed online? That will place further barriers to registering this large population before the end of the implementation period, and increase the likelihood that we will have a large undocumented population, come the end of the transition period.
The draft regulations deal with family members of EU citizens, but do not specify to which family members they refer. That leaves open the possibility that British-born children, or children who have spent most of their life in the UK, may be required to pay to provide biometric data. Can the Minister confirm that special consideration will be made for children, so that they do not have to go through the lengthy and expensive process of providing biometric data? The Migration Observatory has highlighted the children of parents who either do not apply for settled status or do not know that their children need to apply as being particularly at risk. How is the Minister further protecting children who are dependent on their parents for a settled status application?
Secondly, we are concerned that not enough is being done to mitigate the impact of this measure on vulnerable groups. Not enough has been done to reduce the costs for citizens with lower income. In the case of a family of five, regardless of their financial situation, they will need to pay £227.50 to apply for a status that they did not need before. This is a significant cost for individuals and families to bear, and might even deter them from applying for settled status, which would leave them vulnerable, as they might become undocumented in the country. What financial assistance will the Government provide to low-income people who need to apply for settled status?
Can the Minister also confirm whether providing biometric data to the Home Office will be an additional cost, and therefore an additional barrier, to applicants? The former Immigration Minister spoke to the Lords EU Select Committee in December and assured it that we could forgo health insurance for students and those who are economically inactive. There is no mention of that in the statutory instrument, so can the Minister confirm those comments?
Although it is welcome that, to some extent, advice and support for applicants will be provided, it is not clear what the scope of that assistance will be, or how many caseworkers there will be and what training they will receive. The Minister has talked before about a customer contact centre. Can she provide any further information about who will staff the centre and whether information disclosed to it will be passed to immigration enforcement officials?
The question of how employers, landlords or banks have been consulted on the settled status scheme remains ambiguous. Applicants need to prove their status to these people or bodies in order to obtain a work contract, bank account or rental agreement. There is already evidence that EU citizens are being discriminated against in the rental and employment markets. What specific consultation has taken place with employers, landlords and bank groups on the settled status scheme and how has their advice been incorporated thus far?
We are concerned that successful applicants will not be given any physical document that evidences their status, as current biometric residence card holders are. This is a serious problem for the digitally illiterate. For example, there are particular concerns among the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities that this decision will effectively amount to exclusion of their communities, so will the Minister consider introducing physical proof of status?
Our third area of concern is around the lack of consultation. Paragraph 10 of the explanatory memorandum says:
“The Home Office has not undertaken a full public consultation, but the policy has been discussed with its internal and external stakeholders, such as groups representing EU citizens in the UK”
and other groups. What specific groups have been consulted to represent EU citizens in the UK, and how have their assessments of the amendments been incorporated in the draft? Also, what further details can be provided about the future full public consultation that will take place?
Paragraph 5 of the explanatory memorandum says that the Minister for Immigration believes this statutory instrument is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, as this statutory instrument deals with collecting biometric data, we do not believe that it is enough for the Minister to make that judgement on her own. Will she carry out a full and thorough consultation on the instrument’s compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights?
Paragraph 12 of the explanatory memorandum says that the impact on the public sector
“is expected to be minimal as these Regulations only affect individuals.”
Tens of thousands of EU nationals work in our NHS and public sector. The Scottish Government are paying for all public sector workers’ settled status applications. Will the Minister consider doing that for other parts of the UK too?
Finally, we are concerned about the potential impact on negotiations with the EU. The statutory instrument has been drafted without regard for the Brexit negotiations or the EU law that still applies to the UK while we are a member of the EU. The Government have consistently neglected the negotiations. The previous Secretary of State for the Brexit Department hardly visited Europe for negotiations, and the new Secretary of State has decided to take an evening off rather than attend the first day of the first round of negotiations since he got the job.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The shadow Minister is making a number of points. Clearly there is a pay-off between full and maximum consultation and having something that is implemented in a timely way, so that it is available for people as soon as possible. On his second point—which is beginning to deviate into personal criticism of the politicians involved—does he accept that, for those of us on the Brexit Select Committee, this is an incredibly important development that is absolutely in kilter with the tone of the negotiations, which is to resolve problems for citizens, whether European or British?
Afzal Khan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not disagree that it is important; that is precisely why I am asking the questions. It is vital that we get this right.
What discussions has the Minister had with the EU to establish whether it will accept the provisions in the instrument, and what evaluation has she carried out to establish that the powers are legal while we are still members of the EU, given that we are not requiring UK citizens to submit the same kinds of data? There are serious concerns that the EU settlement scheme will cause an explosion of bad advice from phoney solicitors, exploiting vulnerable applicants. With vital protections stripped away in the recent Data Protection Act 2018, there is an even greater need for good advice. What is the Minister doing to make legal advice available for those who need it among the 3.6 million?
I have outlined the serious concerns that the Labour party has about the statutory instrument. The powers have been insufficiently defined, there has been no thorough consultation, and there has been too little regard for our negotiations with the EU. The EU settled status scheme is being introduced in the context of the “hostile environment”. Ministers have claimed that the process will be straightforward and streamlined, and that caseworkers will be given the benefit of the doubt. However, such an approach would require a total overhaul of the culture and training in the Home Office. I do not believe that that can be achieved in 18 months, so it is essential that we protect all the safeguards, checks and balances that we can.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I can be very brief, because I share most of the concerns that the shadow Minister has expressed.
I will briefly focus on the scope of the instrument. As long ago as September 2017, there were Home Office assurances that EU citizens would not be fingerprinted after Brexit. In the light of those assurance, the 3 million subsequently issued a statement—with the Home Office’s agreement, as I understand it—that said:
“The Home Office has confirmed in accordance with the Policy Paper (of 26th June 2017) and subsequent negotiations with the Commission on Citizens’ Rights its position that EU citizens…will not have to submit fingerprints”.
The Government then repeated those reassurances in their technical note “Citizens’ rights—administrative procedures in the UK”, published on 8 November 2017. Paragraph 12 said:
“We will verify identity and are considering digital ways to do this in order to make it both secure and user-friendly. We intend to ask applicants to submit a photograph. We will not ask EU citizens for other biometric data such as fingerprints.”
My simple question is: why is the Home Office seeking to help itself to a broader power to do something that it has previously said expressly that it would not do? Are we not in danger of undermining reassurances that have been given to EU citizens, and drawing back on them?
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the other hon. Members who have spoken, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton.
It is two years since the referendum and 16 months since the Government triggered article 50, and this is it. I have 9,800 constituents who are affected by this issue—non-UK EU nationals living in Bermondsey and Old Southwark. They were hoping for more information. They still have no idea of the cost of registering in the new process. That is meant to be sorted by October. We have three months left, and eight months until we are supposed to leave full stop. The Government said that registering could cost less than a passport, but this was an opportunity to provide more information. If my constituents face a charge of £70 each, they will collectively be charged £686,000 for the new process.
The Government are still not clear about what people are registering for. What rights will it help them to accrue, and are they intractable? If someone has been here for five years and secures permanent residence, but then leaves for five years for work or due to care responsibilities, what are their legal rights? These regulations were an opportunity to address that. Will the Minister clarify whether someone in those circumstances will have lost permanent residence, or whether they will be able to return unfettered?
This issue also affects UK expats living in other EU countries. One of my constituents, Adrian Priestman, gave me a book entitled “In Limbo Too”. He lives in France, and his wife holds dual nationality, lives in the UK and works in the NHS. One of the book’s chapters is called “I have been worried each and every day since the Referendum”, which speaks volumes about the UK Government’s abandonment of that group. What does the Minister expect other EU member states to do for UK nationals living in their countries in response to the regulations? What relationship can those people expect, given the uncertainty that results from the lack of information?
We expected the regulations to outline the process in more detail. The Minister said that much of it will be digital—fingerprints will be done digitally, for instance—but acknowledged that the biometric data cannot be digital. What assurance does that give, given the mess of online information sharing for universal credit and from other Departments? Will the Minister give an assurance that information can be shared safely under any digital process?
The Government were also supposed to use the regulations to clarify health insurance issues. The then Minister said to the House of Lords in December that the requirement to have health insurance might be waived for some EU nationals living here, including students and economically inactive people. Seven months later, there is nothing in the regulations to deliver on that approach. It is a chaotic approach from a Government riddled with division—there has been another resignation today. Will the Minister tell us how EU nationals will be helped to secure health insurance or be made aware of the need to secure it? Who do the Government now expect to be exempt?
The Government were also supposed to show how they will support EU nationals living here. Some 2.9 million people are affected, and there is nothing in the regulations to show how they will be helped through the online process. Will the Minister indicate whether the Home Office or another Department is responsible for that?
Worryingly, the regulations cover many children. Will the Minister outline how many will be affected and what registering means for them? Paragraph 3.2 of the explanatory memorandum says that the scheme is for EU nationals living in the UK, but it also says that some British citizens could be covered. How many, and at what cost? There is so little detail. That will appal the families in my constituency who were expecting the regulations to provide more detail. There is the potential for more British children to be taken into the system, because British children with dual-nationality parents will be affected. Again, how many, and at what cost? Where is that information to be found?
The Government say that the regulations are compatible with the European convention on human rights. How so, if one citizen has rights that another one is expected to pay for? If a family leaves due to the high cost, their right to family life is obviously affected. Human rights are meant to provide a platform of equality. The regulations will provide for unequal UK citizenship and allow for discrimination against some families, which would be against article 14. That follows the Government’s pattern of creating a hostile environment, which affects a lot of my constituents and leaves British parents unable to access child benefit and housing benefit. They are expected to pay £1,000 to the Home Office for an admin process that costs £300. The regulations will potentially take that much further and affect more British children, but very little detail has been provided.
The Government have said that there has been no consultation—we have had two years for a consultation—for significant changes that affect not just EU nationals but many others. They said that other Departments and consulates had sent in responses—there was not a consultation, but some have sent in responses. Will they be published? Why was it only the Department for Work and Pensions that responded, not the Department of Health and Social Care and other Departments? Which consulates responded? What did they ask for? That would be really useful information.
The Government also suggested that the regulations will affect only individuals. That is astonishing. Of course businesses are affected by them, as they may have to cover new costs for employees. There is no demonstration that the Government have understood the impact on business. There are more than 2.9 million EU nationals living here, and most are in work. It is an insult to businesses, and especially to small and medium-sized enterprises, to claim that there will be no effect. What about the impact on employees? As we have seen today, 139,000 EU citizens left last year, and fewer are coming in every year.
What about businesses’ ability to recruit? What assessment have the Government made of the cost of recruitment and retention to businesses up and down the country? I know that the Government have given up the ghost as far as pretending to be party of business is concerned. The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), showed that as he pootled round the globe like Toad of Toad Hall—not always to dodge votes in this place—using highly colourful language about what he thought of British business. The regulations take that even further.
However, it is not only business that is affected. The Government claim there is no impact on the public sector. There are more than 50,000 EU nationals working in the NHS. Local authorities and NHS trusts commission St Christopher’s to provide palliative care and end-of-life care, and they rely on a workforce that in my constituency is 53% non-UK EU nationals. That is why an impact assessment was essential. Why did the Government not undertake one for the regulations? It could have revealed all the issues. Despite the impact on business, employment, health and social care, disabled people whose health and social care services are affected and the women who are the majority of the workforce in those sectors, as well as the potential for age discrimination against children from new costs, the Government should consider an impact assessment now—in full.
The Government say that the regulations will be monitored and reviewed, but there is no detail about how, when there is so little time to get things right. It is important to ask when the regulations will be reviewed. In 10 years, or a month? Will they be under constant review? Will any review consider the average process times for those who apply, and what will the Government do to address emerging challenges? It is important to get that right.
Home Office understaffing means that more than 300,000 people are waiting for decisions right now. That affects my constituents every week, because it takes more than eight months to get the simplest of visas. Lillian came to see me on Friday. She has leave to remain. She expected a biometric card in April, but it still has not arrived. As a result she has missed her father’s funeral in Lagos. Her mum is now in a critical condition in hospital in Nigeria as well. That card needs to arrive. No one should be similarly affected by the process, but there is no commitment in the regulations or associated documents on how the Home Office will address that kind of delay.
Business is affected as well. A financial news specialist firm from my constituency told me it is moving 30 jobs to Düsseldorf because of the Home Office delays in getting visas. It cannot wait, and that is under the current system. These regulations will add more people and work into Home Office systems, with no commitment to resourcing them, so how will the Government prevent further delays and their impact on business?
There are time limits on applying for registration, so how will the Home Office extend the timeline for applying, to cover delays? That should be in the regulations. The drafting of the statutory instrument is an insult to UK and EU nationals alike, and I cannot possibly support it.
Caroline Nokes
As I set out in my opening remarks, and as I told the House on 21 June, the EU settlement scheme will enable EU citizens and their family members to obtain settled status. We will ensure that there are assisted digital services to enable applicants to complete their applications online, where there are technology or access barriers. UK Visas and Immigration already has an assisted digital service to help the most vulnerable.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Can the Minister explain what a digital assisted service will consist of?
Caroline Nokes
I thank the Whip for that question. UKVI staff already travel to individual applicants’ houses in some instances to assist them through the process, but we are hoping to roll this out to a range of other stakeholders, including organisations such as Citizens Advice and Age Concern, which have participated constructively in the various user groups that we have already set up.
Neil Coyle
How much money do the Government provide to organisations such as Citizens Advice, bearing in mind that it already sees 50,000 people a quarter as a direct result of universal credit? Does it have the capacity for that, and how much is it being resourced to try to cover the Government’s backside?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about support to local authorities and to Citizens Advice. We are not seeking to add burdens to those organisations that already provide great service to our constituents.
As I said, EU citizens and their family members who can provide evidence that they have lived here continuously for five years will be eligible for settled status. Those who have lived here for less than five years will generally be granted pre-settled status and be able to apply for settled status once they reach the five-year point.
Alongside the immigration rules and fees regulations that I will lay before Parliament shortly, the regulations that we have debated today will provide the legislative underpinning for an important scheme that I am sure all Members will agree we need to open as soon as possible. EU citizens will need to meet three core criteria to be granted status under the scheme: proving identity, showing that they are resident in the UK, and declaring whether they have any criminal convictions. Collecting biographical information and secure biometric data about applicants is critical to that process.
For those who wish to complete the application entirely online, an app will allow EU citizens to confirm the relevant details remotely on their mobile phone or tablet, or at a location established for them to use the app or be helped to do so. Alternatively, they will be able to send their identity document by post, and a dedicated team will check it and return it without delay.
Secondly, we will establish that the applicant is resident in the UK and, where appropriate, their family relationship to an eligible EU citizen. Where possible, we will do that automatically using employment and benefit records, but applicants will also be able to provide a range of supporting evidence and we will work flexibly with them to help them to evidence their continuous residence.
Thirdly, we will check that the applicant is not a serious or persistent criminal and does not pose a security threat. That is absolutely the right thing to do to protect everyone who lives in the UK. It will not affect the overwhelming majority of EU citizens and their family members.
The biometric regulations will enable us to require EU citizens and their family members to provide a facial photograph as part of their application, which we need to confirm their identity by comparing it with the photograph in their identity document, so as to be satisfied that they are one and the same person. We currently require a facial photograph as part of applications for documents issued under EU law, such as registration certificates and residence cards. As is currently the case across the immigration system, non-EU citizen family members who apply under the scheme will also be required to enrol their fingerprints, unless they already hold a biometric residence card.
Recording biometric data and biographical information is important because it enables us to confirm and fix a person’s details to their unique identifiers, and establishes a reliable link between the holder and their status. It also allows us to check against existing records to ensure that the applicant is not known to the police by another identity.
The withdrawal agreement permits the UK to open the scheme before we exit next March. It will be voluntary while EU citizens and family members exercise their free movement rights. Children under the age of five will not need to provide fingerprints, but we need to take photographs so that children are protected and do not face difficulty evidencing their stay in the UK.
It is for other member states to determine the rights of UK nationals living in the EU, but we are proactively engaging with them to encourage their preparations, alongside our detailed preparations. There is no requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance under the scheme, and that is not a matter for these regulations.
Biometrics will be used and shared only in accordance with the law, which will mainly be for law enforcement purposes or as specified in the regulations as amended. That does not include sharing biometric data with commercial partners. We will retain biometric information only as long as its retention is necessary in connection with an immigration or nationality purpose, and we will normally delete fingerprints 10 years after any leave lapses, unless the person is considered to be a threat of high harm to the UK, in which case we will retain them indefinitely.
Neil Coyle
I have a quick question, as I suspect we will not get answers to many of the others. Does the Minister expect the system to be as effectively and sensitively administered as that which affects Commonwealth citizens who are legally entitled to be here but are affected by the Windrush scandal?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about those Commonwealth citizens who have been affected by issues related to Windrush. The key issue for the Windrush generation is that they did not have documentation to evidence their legal immigration status, which is why it is so crucial that EU citizens and their family members apply under this scheme, so that they will be able to evidence their status in future.
We have engaged comprehensively with stakeholders throughout the process.
Stuart C. McDonald
On the issue of engagement, as I said earlier, the Home Office has repeatedly said that it will not require fingerprints from EU nationals, but these regulations appear to allow for that to happen. Can the Minister clarify that?
Caroline Nokes
For absolute clarity, the regulations allow for the collection of fingerprints from the non-EU family members of EU citizens. We will not collect fingerprints from EU citizens.
We have engaged with EU citizens at every stage of the development process, and will continue to do so. We recently set up a user group specifically for vulnerable users, which has enabled us to draw on important and useful information from organisations such as Age UK. We will continue to expand our communications to ensure that EU citizens are aware of the scheme, how it will operate and what information they will need to provide, and that they are reassured that they will have plenty of time to apply for their new UK immigration status.
The issue of fees was raised. That matter was comprehensively examined last week in front of the Exiting the European Union Committee. It is clear that the fee was agreed with the EU when we were conducting the citizens’ rights part of the withdrawal negotiations and, with a process that will take three years to complete, I absolutely expect that the average family will be able to save up the amount required.
Caroline Nokes
An adult fee is £65, which is the same amount as the current fee for a permanent residence document. Of course, permanent residence is a status conferred under EU and not UK law, and it will lapse after we have exited the EU. For children it will be £32.50, and for children in care there will be no fee.
Richard Graham
It was interesting that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, called earlier for a prolonged consultation on the regulations while his colleague, the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, asked whether we could introduce them yesterday. Am I not right in thinking that they will come into force 21 days after they are made, and therefore EU nationals living in this country can get on with applying to regulate their status pretty quickly, which could not possibly happen if we had the sort of long consultation that the Opposition are calling for?
Caroline Nokes
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is, of course, right: we want to crack on with this. To me it is important that we get the settled status scheme up and running, so that the EU citizens who have contributed so much to our community and our economy have the ability to confirm their status without further delay. I therefore hope that the Committee will approve the regulations.
Question put.
Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. On 2 July, I announced that maximum fees for students undertaking undergraduate courses in the 2019-2020 academic year would remain at 2018-2019 levels for the second year running. The Government have listened to the views of young people, parents and Members, and have decided to freeze maximum tuition fees for the 2019-2020 academic year, saving students up to £255.
The freeze in fees builds on other changes we have made to help students with their finances. From the ’18-’19 tax year we increased the threshold above which graduates are required to make repayments on their loans from £21,000 to £25,000, rising by average earnings thereafter. That puts more money in the pockets of graduates, and it is happening in the context of widening access to higher education. A record proportion of 18-year-olds, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are going to university to study full time. However, there is still more to do across higher education. That is why the Government are undertaking a major review of post-18 education and funding to ensure that we have a joined-up education system that is accessible to all and encourages the development of the skills we need as a country. The Government expect to conclude the review in early 2019.
These regulations are made under section 10 and schedule 2 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. They set the maximum fee limits that providers in England can charge home students in 2019-2020. The existing fee caps, made under section 24 of the Higher Education Act 2004, will be revoked automatically on 1 August 2019 as a result of paragraph 30(2) of schedule 11 to the 2017 Act. It is therefore essential that new regulations are made under HERA to ensure that fee caps continue and that students benefit from the freeze in maximum fees.
Under HERA, providers can choose to register with the new independent regulator, the Office for Students, in one of two categories: the “Approved (fee cap)” category or the “Approved” category. Providers registering in the “Approved (fee cap)” category will, for 2019-2020, be eligible for OfS grant funding and subject to maximum fees set in the regulations—£9,250 for a full-time course offered by a provider with a teaching excellence and student outcomes award. Students attending “Approved (fee cap)” providers will be able to access loans to cover the full costs of their fees. Providers registering in the “Approved” category, however, will not be eligible for OfS grant funding or subject to maximum fees. Students attending those providers will be able to access lower rates of loans towards the costs of their fees. Under HERA, the OfS will be able to limit fees charged by “Approved (fee cap)” providers once the regulations come into force.
Without the regulations, providers will be free legally to charge whatever fees they wish, and we will be unable to implement fully the new regulatory framework under HERA—in particular, the requirement for “Approved (fee cap)” providers to submit access and participation plans to the OfS in order to charge fees above £6,165 for full-time courses. The regulations will ensure that providers have to adhere to the maximum cap, and without them, providers would be free to charge whatever they want. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the Minister for the indications he has given today. I give notice, for the relief of Government Members, that we do not intend to oppose these regulations. We do, however, intend to hold the Government to account—that is the role of the Opposition—by asking one or two questions about them.
We are discussing regulations that will, as the Minister said, freeze tuition fees for a second straight year and set the levels at which institutions can charge students, depending on their place in the Office for Students’ new register. I emphasise for the benefit of all Committee members that we are entering new and uncharted waters. The OfS is not the same as the Higher Education Funding Council for England, and the Government do not wish it to be the same; that was made very clear during proceedings on the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. That means that we have to tread carefully, both in establishing precedents and in evaluating the effectiveness of the implementation of the regulations, the capacity of the OfS to implement them, and the outcomes. I will be asking the Minister one or two questions about that.
In the 2017 Act, the Government balanced the introduction of differentiated fees for institutions with the creation of the teaching excellence framework. The TEF was one of the ways in which differentiated fees would be established, which is why the Government used the Act to put those mechanisms in place. However, the Government have not been able to do as they originally intended with these regulations, because they are committed to a full review of the TEF. Although the Minister was not involved in the discussions that took place between Labour and Conservative Front Benchers before the previous general election, he will know that that review was one of the concessions that the Government made in the so-called wash-up period. We and a large number of Members of the House of Lords were concerned that that should be done, and amendments were tabled to that effect, so the Government have to begin the process this year. Will the Minister let us know what progress has been made on appointing the independent chair for that review? If the review does not go forward in a timely fashion and is not accepted by all parties, it will be difficult to make the TEF work in establishing differentiated fees for institutions.
Although it is important and absolutely right that tuition fees do not go up any further—we await the outcome of the Government’s post-18 review—it is instructive to look at why the Government have had to do what they have done. The Minister, perfectly reasonably, said that they had listened to Parliament and various groups, including universities and young people. All of that is highly laudable, but they also had to listen to the growing clamour of concern about the long-term implications of the system they have put in place.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the removal of maintenance grants from students from low-income families meant that those students were graduating with the highest debt levels—in excess of £57,000. That makes the current educational climate for students not favourable, despite what the Minister said about the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds under the age of 18; that is an important caveat. Since 2010, Governments have repeatedly raised tuition fees. They trebled them to £9,000, with a subsequent increase during the 2017-18 academic year to £9,250. According to a Sutton Trust report from late last year, the average debt for students in England is £46,000.
There has been a steady stream of reports in recent months criticising the Government’s market model for higher education as completely unworkable. Bodies such as the Lords Economic Affairs Committee and the Public Accounts Committee have said that the student loan system is economically unsustainable and damaging to social mobility.
I understand that in introducing the regulations, the Minister wants to put the best gloss on the Government’s motivations. I appreciate that he has listened, as he said he would, to the views of students, but the Government are also introducing the measures for practical and political reasons. Whatever the basis for it, however, this freeze is highly welcome and definitely desirable, which is why the Opposition will not vote against it. We do not believe that we should place any further burdens on students at this stage. The freeze is the bare minimum that the Government should do, and there are other impacts on students and certain groups that must be looked at urgently.
Before I turn to those impacts, I will ask the Minister one or two questions about the detail of the regulations. For the benefit of the Committee, I will refer to the explanatory memorandum that we have been given. I said earlier that the OfS was a different animal from HEFCE, and it behoves me to ask a couple of questions about that. Paragraph 4.1 of the memorandum describes the background to the establishment of the process, how HEFCE currently imposes the limit on tuition fees and how the regulations
“will prescribe the maximum tuition fees that will apply to higher education providers which are registered in a certain part of the register maintained by the OfS under section 3 of the Act.”
In advance of introducing the regulations, what discussions has the Minister had with the OfS about its capacity to register the various higher education providers? We know, of course, what the Government anticipate. Indeed, one of the elements of the pitch made by the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), was that we were going to get a great influx of new higher education providers, not least in the private sector; he made great play of that throughout proceedings on the Bill. What consultations has the Minister had with the OfS about how it is proceeding with the register, and what differences does he anticipate between the OfS’s handling of the register and how HEFCE handled it?
The Minister also spoke about the differential between providers on the register that have in place OfS-approved access and participation plans—I refer to paragraph 4.6 of the memorandum—and those that do not. The regulations prescribe an absolute commitment to fair access and participation as part of being on the register. Furthermore, paragraph 4.7 states:
“These Regulations similarly set a limit on the maximum fees that prescribed registered providers which do not have access and participation plans approved by the OfS in place, but which do have a high level quality rating may charge for full-time or part-time higher education courses…This limit is known as the ‘basic amount’.”
I have two concerns about that. Is the Minister absolutely confident that the OfS has the mechanisms it needs to distinguish between higher education providers that come under the higher amount category and those that come under the basic amount category? The phraseology in the explanatory note is those that can charge the basic amount must have a “high level quality rating”. The words “quality” and “high level” are potentially quite subjective, so it would be helpful to have some illumination from the Minister about whether it is down to his Department or the OfS to decide what a high-level quality rating is.
The last thing we need is for providers to go on to the basic amount register if they do not provide even that. Right from the beginning of proceedings on the 2017 Act, we raised the question of whether new providers could assume that they would eventually be taken as higher education providers. We argued strongly against that “day one” scenario. We accept that we were not successful, but that makes further reassurance in that area all the more important. I ask the Minister to look at that issue, in particular.
I turn to the broader issues that must be addressed with this freeze. The Minister said that the Government have had consultations but, as the former Universities Minister, Lord Willetts, admitted, the fee increases have had a major—indeed, devastating—impact on part-time and mature learning. I hope the post-18 review will look at that very closely, and I am concerned that these regulations contain nothing to remedy it. We know from the Sutton Trust that the biggest decrease has been in the number of students aged over 35—people of prime working age—and we know about the disastrous effect that that has had on the part-time sector. The Government have a key role in widening access for older people, but unfortunately they have had a funny way of showing it in recent years. There is nothing in the regulations to tilt the status quo in favour, or even in support, of mature students.
I must challenge the Minister on one point. Contrary to popular belief, and according to the Open University, the total number of English undergraduate entrants from low-participation areas actually fell by 17% between 2011-12 and 2016-17. I know I have written to him about that recently, but I am extremely concerned about it.
The regulations freeze fees for a year but do not diminish them. Given the nature of statutory instruments, they contain no measures to mitigate the effects of fees. We are agreeing to a freeze for a second year, but who knows what will happen after that? Whatever comes out of the post-18 review, it will not have any effect until the 2021 academic year, at the earliest, and the sector needs some remedy before then. What immediate remedies can the Minister put in place, financial or otherwise, to encourage more take-up of part-time courses and more take-up from mature students?
I want to return to the specifics of the regulations, which talk about the areas and the types of students that will be affected by this process. What the regulations say about maximum fees for specified cases for full-time courses includes students who come to the UK and study on an Erasmus study or work placement year. There is a great deal of concern about what the status of those students will be in terms of funding and eligibility for loans, in relation to the maximum fees that will be charged. In the HE sector, an Erasmus year is the academic year in a course when a student participates in the European Union’s Erasmus+ programme.
I wrote recently to the Minister about the application of Erasmus in 2019-20. I was grateful for his response, which said that EU27 students will be guaranteed for course studies in September 2019, possibly lasting until 2023. We welcome that and I know the HE sector welcomes that, because of the important security it offers the university sector at a time when it has lots of concerns and fears about the implications of Brexit.
However, I also wrote to the Department about whether it would provide a parallel guarantee for those in the further education sector, given that one in 10 higher education students in this country takes their degree via the FE sector. Nothing has been said about a parallel guarantee for adult education courses and apprenticeships or for those participating in the FE sector. Can the Minister chivvy up his colleagues in the Department for Education, particularly the Secretary of State, to make a parallel commitment? It would be greatly appreciated.
Finally, the Minister has talked about the importance of freezing the fees. He has talked about the rise in the threshold, but he did not talk about the interest rate payments, which brings us to the vexed issue of the retail prices index. According to the Library’s research, graduates with student loans in England will be saddled with up to £16,000 more debt because of the Government’s use of RPI instead of the consumer prices index to set interest rates. Analysis shows that the use of RPI, which has been criticised by the Bank of England and the Office for National Statistics, adds the most interest to the debt of the lowest paid graduates.
As I have said, on average students leave university with £46,000 to £50,000 of debt, which is bad enough, but because of the Government’s current interest rate system, they are being charged an additional £16,000 on their loans. In other areas, the Government have dropped RPI in favour of CPI: for example, for uprating public sector pensions. The House of Commons analysis found that switching to CPI would result in £16,000 less interest being added over 30 years to the debt of graduates. Why has there been foot-dragging on that change? What representations is the Minister making to the Treasury team and the Chancellor for his autumn Budget to make a significant change?
At the risk of being accused of being a dog in the manger about this, it is all well and fine to freeze the fees at what the Labour party would consider to be an excessive sum of money in the first place, but if the Minister and his colleagues do not do something to address the issue—or perhaps we are supposed to wait for the post-18 review—the promise of relief that they are trying to offer students and which is embodied in the regulations today will be only half fulfilled.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.
Although the official Opposition are not planning to vote against the regulations—I would not want higher education institutions to set whatever fees they like, so I understand that there has to be a cap, which is what today’s regulations are about—I remind the Committee that Labour Members opposed the increase of the cap from £3,000 to £9,000 and I regret, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South has outlined, that the regulations do not decrease the fees. I think the fees should come down. There is an argument that students should make a contribution, but I do not think that it should be as high as £46,000 or £50,000.
I have said in the Chamber that I oppose the Government’s removal of maintenance grants. I was able to benefit from such a grant at university, and I urge the Minister to ensure that universities such as the one that he and I attended, the University of Oxford, redouble their efforts so that people from under-represented groups—black and ethnic minority communities, but also working-class communities—attend them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) recently made a freedom of information request. There were some appalling answers from the University of Oxford and other elite universities that are taking in very few people from under-represented groups. The universities and the Government need to do a lot more.
Mr Gyimah
I thank hon. Members for a wide-ranging debate and for some very pertinent questions, which I will try to answer.
The first question pertained to the independent reviewer for the teaching excellence and outcomes framework. I want to put it on the record that the process of appointing the reviewer is under way and an announcement will be made in due course, once the appointment has been made.
A number of issues were raised about the current fees system. Interestingly, the Opposition did not mention the effect of raising the threshold, which is an important policy. It cost billions of pounds and will save the average student about £10,000 over the duration of the loan. It is not an insignificant policy in ensuring that we alleviate the burden of debt for students.
Since I was appointed to this job, I have travelled around the country speaking directly to students. I have spoken to about 1,500 students since I was appointed in January. When I say that what we are doing is a response to listening to students, that is meant very seriously. Students have a range of concerns. The issue that is most likely to get them to riot on campus is actually not tuition fees, but the rent going up. That has come up repeatedly.
In that context, maintenance grants were mentioned. It is worth putting it on the record that maintenance grants offered significantly less money than a student can get through a loan. It was actually more difficult for students to pay their way through university, because they received maintenance grants of about £3,000, whereas now they can get a loan, with almost no questions asked, of £10,000. Furthermore, if someone earns less than £25,000 and cannot pay back the loan, they do not have to and after 30 years it is written off. That is helpful for disadvantaged people, because there is no barrier to their accessing higher education. It is therefore unsurprising that the proportion of disadvantaged 18-year-olds applying for full-time undergraduate courses was, in January this year, a record high of 22.6%.
Emma Reynolds
I welcome the threshold that the Minister outlined in his opening speech and has just emphasised, but there is a difference between a grant and a loan. Even if someone will never pay the loan back, they do not know that for sure because they are not entirely sure how much they will earn over their lifetime. Does he not accept that, although maintenance grants were only £3,000, that was money in people’s pockets up front that they never had to pay back? That is different from a loan.
Mr Gyimah
There are two points to make about that. If someone got a £3,000 grant in the previous system and then had to go to a bank to borrow, that would cost them a lot more than it does to borrow under the current loans system. The truth about the current system, which is obviously under review, is that it is a hybrid between a loans system and a contribution system. Opposition Members do students a disservice by pretending that it is similar to a loan from Lloyds bank. It does not go on their credit score if a student is not able to pay the money back, they will not have a bailiff knocking on their door, and there is the issue of their having a job in which they earn more than £25,000. That is very different from a commercial loan, and we do students a disservice by not explaining the system to them and pretending that it is something it is not.
Gordon Marsden
I am sorry to have to intervene on the Minister on that point. He accused the Opposition of not talking about the raising of the threshold. Let me put it on the record to satisfy him, for what it is worth, that we welcome the raising of the threshold. We have persistently and continually argued for the need to raise it, not least because of its implications for students in certain parts of the country who leave university and do not get a decent graduate premium immediately. They are in a very different situation.
However, I really must take issue with the Minister saying, “Oh well, they don’t have to pay it back.” I thought that this was supposed to be a fiscally prudent Government who wanted to look to the future, but the Minister is throwing around public loans like a man with no arms. We all know—surely the Minister has seen this too—that the resource accounting and budgeting figure for the debt that will be lain on future generations is going up and up. We cannot simply work on that basis.
The other point I will mention briefly is that the Minister says that it is much better to take up a loan, based entirely on the assumption that the cohort is made up of 18 to 22-year-olds. I am not sure that is even correct for them, but it is very different for older people—mature students in their 30s and 40s and those doing part-time courses—to take on a debt of the sort of amount we are talking about. The statistics are clear that there has been a catastrophic drop in the number of mature students and part-timers. Although we cannot say absolutely that the tripling of the fees is 100% responsible, it certainly bears a great part of the responsibility.
Mr Gyimah
I thought that was meant to be an intervention but it was a mini-speech. At the risk of drifting into a Second Reading debate on the student finance system, there is one clear difference between Government Members and Opposition Members: if university education was made free, which the Opposition argue for, the numbers would have to be capped. If it is free, it is capped; and if it is capped, it is the well-off who will benefit the most. The system we have introduced means that more disadvantaged students are going to university than ever before. We do not say that the system is perfect, and that is why there is a post-18 review with a wide-ranging remit looking at the issues, including the interest rate, which was raised by the Opposition. If the Opposition would make it free, they have to tell us whose child will not go to university under their scheme when they cut the numbers.
A number of other questions were raised. On the OfS and its capacity to register, it does have that capacity. A lot is going on, and it is on track to deliver in the timeframe that has been set. On new providers, the OfS is dealing with a number of inquiries from them. On EU students and whether the clarification regarding university students applies to FE students, I would like to put it on the record that it does.
The issue of part-time students is of serious concern. We have adopted a number of measures to support part-time and mature students. For example, in the next academic year, part-time students will for the first time be able to access full-time maintenance loans, and we are looking at a lot more support for such students as part of the Augar review.
The regulations must be introduced now because universities have to market their courses for the next academic year, but this is by no means the end of the matter as far as student finance is concerned. I thank Members for their contributions and I welcome the points raised by the Opposition. We must ensure that access to our elite universities is as open as possible, without resorting to any kind of social engineering, so that wherever in our system someone is educated, they are competitive and can apply and get into the top universities if they have the grades. That is a real focus and passion of mine, and I will say lots more about it in due course. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) Regulations 2018.
Draft New Towns Act 1981 (Local Authority Oversight) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft New Towns Act 1981 (Local Authority Oversight) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. The draft regulations were laid before this House on Monday 4 June 2018. If approved, they will allow for the establishment of new locally led town development corporations to be overseen by the local authorities covering the area designated for the new town. Currently, any newly created town development corporation is overseen by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
The Government are committed to helping fix the broken housing market and close the gap in getting towards building 300,000 homes a year. Garden towns and villages are a key part of that, and we want them to have every lever at their disposal.
Where there are complex delivery and co-ordination challenges, we consider that new town development corporations may be the right vehicles for driving forward high-quality new communities at scale. With a statutory objective to secure the laying out and development of the new town and their own suite of powers, they should have the focus and heft to get things done. In line with our locally led approach to new garden towns and villages, we think it is right to provide the option for new town development corporations to be overseen not by the Secretary of State but by the local authorities covering the area for the new town. Our housing White Paper, “Fixing our broken housing market”, published in February 2017, therefore committed the Government to legislating to allow locally led new town development corporations to be set up. Section 16 of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 enables that to happen by providing a regulation-making power to set out the necessary detail to make it work in practice.
The draft regulations effect a simple principle: the transfer of functions relating to the oversight of a new town development corporation from the Secretary of State to the local authority or authorities covering the area of the new town. As the length of the draft regulations testifies, in practice that process is not as straightforward as replacing the words “Secretary of State” with the words “local authority” in the New Towns Act 1981.
Some functions, such as the confirmation of compulsory purchase orders, will remain with the Secretary of State, and it will, of course, continue to be the Secretary of State who will lay the regulations that designate new towns and establish and dissolve new town development corporations. Some provisions, such as those relating to audit and accounts and planning, have required amendment to make them work in a context where the development corporation answers not to central Government but to local councils.
I emphasise that the draft regulations do not change the powers of new town development corporations; they simply localise oversight of the development corporation. Moreover, although the draft regulations provide the mechanism for a locally led new town development corporation to be set up, they do not enable Government to simply do so at the behest of a local authority or group of local authorities. If, as we hope and expect, local authorities consider a locally led new town development corporation to be the right vehicle, we will need to undertake a public consultation, and only if we consider designating the particular new town to be expedient in the national interest would we lay a statutory instrument to that effect. It is also important to note that Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise each proposal for the designation of a new town, because a statutory instrument designating a new town must be debated in both Houses.
In conclusion, if approved, the draft regulations will allow newly established town development corporations to be overseen by local authorities, via further statutory instruments laid under the affirmative procedure. In short, the draft regulations support locally led ambitions for high-quality new development at scale. They provide an important lever for delivering the transformational housing growth we need, while ensuring that surrounding existing communities can also benefit through well-planned infrastructure and community amenities.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I welcome the Minister to his new position and hope that he manages to stay in it for some time—I have lost count of the number of housing and planning Ministers I have shadowed over the years. I thank him for outlining why the Government wish to introduce the regulations. I understand the need for them, having discussed this issue throughout the passage of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017.
The Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee largely because, as I pointed out often during the passage of the Act, the Government’s approach to new towns borrows heavily from ideas set out by Labour in the Lyons review, published in 2014, on how to deliver more housing for the nation. The review had a whole chapter on garden cities and new towns. On page 95, we say:
“The process of establishing the sites for new Garden Cities is both politically and technically complex…The evidence is clear that Garden Cities will not happen without local support and therefore we propose that the process will be locally-led with designation proposed by local authorities”
and proposals from other local agencies. We set out the policy intention to enable local authorities to lead on garden cities and new towns in 2014, and we are pleased that the Government have taken our idea on board, but I have a few questions for the Minister.
The regulations seek to create an oversight mechanism for new town development that reflects the locally led approach to new garden cities and villages. That is set out clearly in what the Government want to do. We are pleased that new town development corporations can be locally led, but if that is to happen local authorities need to be adequately supported and, from the information in paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory memorandum and regulation 2, I am not sure that that is the case.
Although the Opposition welcome the fact that new towns will be locally led, we have some concerns about what schedule 1, which modifies the 1981 Act, says that a new town should encompass. Our contention is not with what the schedule says but with what is missing. The Government say a new town should be expected to be
“a high quality settlement which is a sustainable community”,
that it should
“support sustainable development and good design”,
that it should have a plan for the long-term stewardship of assets, that there should be participation from the local community and that arrangements should be set in place for a legacy from the new town development corporation. However, that is not the same as adopting garden city principles to underpin new towns. There is nothing in that list about ensuring a degree of affordability and mix in the local community or how the new settlements might address climate change, and there is nothing specific about how the infrastructure that makes new settlements work, particularly through access to transport and employment, will be funded.
There is a reliance on local authority borrowing to finance new towns in paragraphs 7 and 8 of schedule 1. Indeed, I cannot see where the Government outline their financial commitment to supporting local authorities who propose plans for new towns or garden villages, and the Minister can tell me if I missed it. I accept that the Government have made a small amount of money available for the garden towns programme, some of which is for infrastructure, but the general consensus seems to be that it is nothing like what is needed if local authorities are to be encouraged and incentivised to bring forward local new town development corporations.
It seems very curious for the Government to shift the whole financial responsibility for new towns to local government when many local authorities up and down the country have had their budgets cut massively for the past 10 years. The Opposition think that that might mean that it will be very difficult for local authorities, even if they wish to establish a new town development corporation, to do so, because they will be worried about financial liability and, perhaps, the lack of support from central Government.
Similarly, I have some issues with paragraph 11 of schedule 1 about the appointment of members to the corporation board, and their tenure of office. It is good that the Government want some resident membership of the board, or local knowledge reflected on it, and we would expect to see that in a proposal made by local authorities. But the local voice could always be heard under the current system, through the public inquiry process. There does not appear to be any mention in the regulations of local authorities’ new town proposals needing to go through a public inquiry process. Indeed, when outlining the process a few minutes ago, the Minister said there would be public consultation, but we do not know what that will be. Will the Minister confirm that there is no requirement for a public inquiry in the process, and that that is a change? Will he inform the Committee of how that public consultation will be carried out in future?
As I said earlier, Labour does not wish to reject any proposals, including these, that might lead to the creation of new towns and help deal with our housing crisis, but we would have liked to see the proposals for new towns genuinely reflect garden city principles so that their success for the longer term could be guaranteed. If the Government are going to swipe our policies, that is fair enough, but we would like them to implement them properly. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Kit Malthouse
It is a great pleasure on my first outing as Minister in a Delegated Legislation Committee to preside over a break-out of cross-party consensus. Obviously, great minds think alike on local control. I am pleased that the hon. Lady has seen the importance of having local control over some of the drivers of new towns and how that it is likely to inject an element of dynamism into the proposals. She has raised a number of questions; if I do not get to them all, I am more than happy to write to her and clarify.
On support, there is a coincidence of interest between the Government and a group of local authorities that promote the new garden town to get the thing off the ground and get it built as quickly as possible. It is certainly the case that we would expect to be part of the ongoing dialogue that will take place beyond the establishment of the development corporation. The hon. Lady has my commitment that that would be the case, and I hope that of my successors whenever they may come—hopefully not for a long time. We have made a significant financial commitment, as she knows, of £22 million, with £7 million available this year. We have other pots of money, in particular for infrastructure. She knows that there is a £5 billion pot is available in the housing infrastructure fund to enable and accelerate development where appropriate.
On appointments, it is worth bearing in mind that we are increasing local democratic oversight. Although we encourage local authorities to ensure that local representation is embedded in the governance structure, the responsibility for that governance will fall to local, democratically elected politicians. An element of improved direct local oversight and local voices in the organisation will come about because of the draft regulations.
On the public inquiry, we want to make sure that the development corporations can be established as quickly and unbureaucratically as possible. There will be an up-front assessment process. The Secretary of State will look carefully at the robustness of the plans, particularly around some of the elements that were mentioned—community involvement, plans for the legacy, ongoing stewardship of the development corporation—and at their financial viability and deliverability before he or she, whoever the Secretary of State is, tables the regulation for the establishment of the development corporation. The House will then get a chance through the affirmative procedure to make known its own views about the likely success of the corporation being established. As far as we can see, that seems a sensible, non-bureaucratic—as lightly bureaucratic as we can get it—process to get these things established.
I am sure the hon. Lady agrees with me that the housing need in this country is extremely pressing. We do not want to see undue delay where there is an accepted view among local democratically elected representatives that this is what they want to do. If a robust plan has been developed, it should proceed.
Dr Blackman-Woods
We would like reassurance from the Government that, if they are not going down the public inquiry line, there will be a real opportunity for local voices to be heard on what the new town will encompass. Local people often know best how to achieve the end product. I want to know a little more about what the Government intend to do. The Minister does not have to provide us with the information about how local voices will be included today, but can he at some point?
Kit Malthouse
We will look at things on a case-by-case basis, but the whole point of the regulations is to make local voices louder. Local authorities—people who have been elected by local people—are the progenitors of the idea. The hon. Lady raised issues about affordable housing, climate change and all that kind of stuff. We should not forget that the planners will be intrinsically involved. While the development corporation is able to master-plan and make proposals, the local planners will ultimately make decisions about those kinds of issues. The local voice will be very strong in these organisations. They will serve the areas they are designated in much better than they have done thus far. I am happy to elucidate further if the hon. Lady wishes. If she has specific questions, she can drop me a line and I will be happy to respond.
We have debated regulations that will enable local areas to use the New Towns Act 1981—previously the preserve of central Government—to create their own locally led new town development corporations. This will give local authorities a powerful and effective tool for driving forward high quality new garden communities at scale. It is a game-changing move that puts local areas in the driving seat of developing new towns. We are really very excited—certainly I am, having campaigned on these issues in the past—to see how the measure will be picked up and used to deliver exemplary new settlements. I again commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (Business Rate Supplements Functions) Order 2018
(6 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (Business Rate Supplements Functions) Order 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. The draft order, which was laid before the House on 7 June, will confer on the Liverpool city region combined authority the power to raise a business rate supplement, to be exercised by the Mayor. This is a similar power to the mayoral infrastructure supplement included in the Government’s devolution agreement with Liverpool city region. I commend the order to the Committee.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson.
I do not object to the order in any way. It is a welcome, although very modest, measure enabling the combined authority to raise some of its own finance in certain circumstances. I hope that the Minister will go on to think about other ways we might give more genuine power to the combined authority.
I hope that we will see the Minister again in due course with more real devolved power for the combined authority.
Jake Berry
I take the hon. Lady’s comments on board. I note that this is one of many powers that the Government have given, and as a Scouser born and bred—which I believe she is not, although she recently accused me in the papers of not knowing where Liverpool was, I think—I am happy with any Government policy that returns more power to the great people of Liverpool. The Mayor, of course, has the power to raise his own precept if he wants, to enable him to have more money to spend on exercising his function in the combined authority.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice and miscellaneous amendments) order 2018
(6 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—RIPA—provides the regulatory framework to govern the use and authorisation of a number of investigatory techniques, ensuring that their use by public authorities is compliant with the right to privacy under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The provisions of RIPA and related legislation, including the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, play a most important role in the work of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, as well as other public bodies with enforcement or regulatory functions. The techniques authorised under these Acts are crucial in enabling investigators to obtain intelligence and evidence that can prevent terrorist attacks, disrupt the activities of serious organised crime groups, establish culpability so that offenders can be brought to justice and effectively enforce a long list of laws and regulations.
The framework that RIPA established ensures that there are strong and transparent safeguards appropriate to the intrusive nature of these investigatory powers, ensuring that they are used lawfully and proportionately. The Investigatory Powers Act fundamentally overhauled the safeguards around a number of powers and the oversight of all investigatory powers. All these safeguards, the clear requirements set out in the codes of practice and the independent oversight provided by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner establish clear limits around the use of these powers, and ultimately provide reassurance to the public that the powers are being used in ways that serve the best interests of us all.
The order introduces three revised codes of practice as well as making some amendments and updates to the public authorities authorised to use surveillance powers under RIPA. The order also makes a minor technical amendment to provisions on the use of combined warrants under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The revised codes of practice provide guidance on specific investigatory powers that are regulated by RIPA, as well as by the Police Act 1997 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. These are covert surveillance, property interference, covert human intelligence sources and the investigation of protected electronic information.
The CHIS and covert surveillance codes of practice, originally issued in 2002 and last updated in 2014, and the investigation of protected electronic information code have been updated to ensure that the guidance remains relevant and keeps pace with change. These updates are necessitated mainly by the changes made by the Investigatory Powers Act. This includes reflecting the creation of the new Investigatory Powers Commissioner, the changes made by the introduction of equipment interference as a technique separate to the existing property interference powers, and the need to mirror the strengthened safeguards for the handling of confidential and privileged material introduced by the Investigatory Powers Act.
A number of other updates and clarifications to the guidance reflect and improve current operational practice. These include expanded guidance on procedures to be followed where investigators use the internet for covert investigatory purposes, where covert surveillance is undertaken by means of drones and provisions intended to reinforce the safety of covert human intelligence sources.
Alongside the codes of practice, we are updating the lists of the public authorities and officers able to authorise the use of directed surveillance and covert human intelligence sources. These lists are in themselves a safeguard against the inappropriate or indiscriminate use of the investigatory powers, as they ensure that their use is limited to specified public authorities and can only be authorised by specified officers within those authorities, who have sufficient authority and expertise. These updates ensure that public authorities can continue to authorise the use of investigatory powers following changes to their organisational structures, and remove any authorities that no longer require the powers.
Finally, we are taking this opportunity to make a minor correction to the arrangements under the Investigatory Powers Act for authorising a combined warrant. This corrects a technical error, which meant that Parliament’s clear original intention that warrants should last for six months was limited to the clearly far too short period of two working days. This can never have been the intention, and so we are taking the opportunity to correct the error. This is a timely improvement that will be of assistance to our intelligence services as they set about their tasks of identifying and disrupting threats to our national security.
All the changes made by this order, both to the codes of practice and the authorisation framework for the powers, ensure that the highest standards continue to be required of those using the powers, and that they are underpinned by ever stronger safeguards against their misuse.
I commend the order to the Committee.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I say at the outset that it is not the intention of the Opposition to oppose this statutory instrument.
First, I should refer to the general approach taken to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, during whose passage the Government accepted a significant number of amendments. That was an entirely appropriate way in which to proceed, and I pay tribute to my predecessors in the shadow home affairs team, who obviously worked for the Opposition on that Bill, and also to my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Torfaen, now Lord Murphy, who chaired the Joint Committee that looked at the Bill and recommended a substantial number of amendments that were accepted by the Government. It is with that approach in mind that I look at the order.
As the Minister set out, the order brings into force three revised codes of practice relating to covert surveillance and property interference, to covert human intelligence sources and to the investigation of protected electronic information. These revised codes will, of course, replace the previous version. I agree with the Minister that it is obviously important that the codes of practice keep pace with change. The codes of practice in themselves are important safeguards as we try to balance the obvious needs of security with liberty and appropriate safeguards for that.
The second part of the order relates to public authorities and updates the public authorities listed in schedule 1 to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in order to authorise direct surveillance and indeed use or conduct of covert human intelligence sources. It also sets out those within public authorities who may authorise these activities, and the purposes for authorisation. Again, those would seem to the Opposition to be entirely sensible measures.
On the third part of the order and the combined warrants, there was, as the Minister has set out, an unintended effect on warrant duration, which the order entirely appropriately seeks to correct. The double lock system of Secretary of State authorisation and judicial commissioner approval is a very important part of the overall framework, and very important in terms of the safeguards that are set out.
On that basis, the Opposition do not intend to oppose the order.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bailey.
I should say at the outset that it is not my intention to divide the Committee. However, during the rather arduous scrutiny of the Investigatory Powers Bill a couple of years ago, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), and, to be fair, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), scrutinised the Bill in some detail and raised concerns time and again about the retention of data being far too widely drawn in the Bill, with far too few safeguards. We said during the passage of the Bill that these powers would not survive legal challenge. The Government thought differently and ploughed on regardless.
It is a shame that the Government’s failings on investigatory powers have been admitted only after the matter was taken to the European Court of Justice. It is to be welcomed, however, that there will be a cut in the number of cases, through increased protections, in which communications data can be accessed by the authority. We have to remember that the Court ruled that EU law precludes EU countries from passing law that
“provides for general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic and location data of all subscribers and registered users relating to all means of electronic communication”
in order to help fight crime. The Court also said that EU law does permit national law makers to, “as a preventive measure,” require traffic and location data to be retained on a targeted basis, but only where the objective of the data retention rules is to fight “serious crime”.
The Scottish National party has always accepted that security powers are extremely important and must always be shown to be necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the law. In our view, the Government have a way to go in making other aspects of the investigative powers proportionate and lawful. As this instrument mainly tightens provisions, we will not oppose it.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I do not want to detain the Committee; I just have one question for the Minister and one area in which I seek reassurance. My question refers to the explanatory note, which says that one of the purposes of this instrument is to
“reflect changes to strengthen protection for juvenile covert human intelligence sources”.
To me, that sounds like under-age spies. Could the Minister say in what circumstances we might be using juvenile covert human intelligence sources, unless my interpretation is wrong?
Like many in my party—including the Minister, I am sure—I regard the restriction on civil liberties represented by investigatory powers or electronic surveillance as necessary when it comes to national security matters and organised crime. As we have seen in the past, however, the list of agencies with access to those powers is considerable. It is difficult to imagine why the General Pharmaceutical Council, for example, might need them. The double lock provision offers some reassurance, but I would like the Minister to assure me that agencies not obviously in the frontline of the battle against terrorism or organised crime, such as some of those listed, are likely to use these powers only on extremely limited occasions.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to all parties here for their support, in principle, for these guidelines. As I said at the beginning, they are designed to reflect changes—for example, in the areas around oversight. The three commissioners have been folded into the judicial commissioners—the Investigatory Powers Commissioner— and that needs to be reflected. They are also designed to reflect changes in technique since RIPA was introduced. Equipment interference used often to be included under property interference, but is now a technical capability—how the law enforcement agencies and intelligence services can access information within an electronic device. To some extent and in some examples they would use equipment interference, so that is only right and proper.
On the increasing safeguards, I specifically changed the guidance to increase the onus on journalistic protections, to ensure that that is properly reflected. There are now whole sections of the guidance that relate to what a police officer or a user using these powers has to follow. I think that was important.
On the subject of juvenile CHIS, it is regrettable that there are young people, below the age of 18 and even 16, who are engaged in criminality, sometimes with gangs; we see it more in county lines, as well. On some very rare occasions, with the authority of the parent, guardian, social worker or other person, we can authorise young people to be part of a process where they can share information, or indeed be tasked. It is not some sort of Alex Rider, secret agent or 007 scenario—my children and I enjoy those books on long car journeys—but a sad reflection of how criminality is working.
We wanted to change the operational impact. At the moment, under RIPA, there is authorisation for one month at a time. We said that that was leading to a stop-start situation and we needed a four-month period—with oversight, obviously. We wanted to slightly broaden who could give the authority, because the guardian or other individual might be engaged in the abuse or the problems that the young people might be tasked with. That is simply a reflection of our trying to ensure that we provide a broader number of people who can safeguard it and extend the time so that we can have an operational impact.
I am happy to write to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon about the extension in who can use some of the powers—he referred to the General Pharmaceutical Council—and explain why that is necessary.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and I might have a slightly different opinion of the ruling that he mentioned. Yes, the European Court of Justice ruled that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 did not provide for enough independent authorisation. That is why we conceded that in court—I will grant him that. However, the broader stuff on our regime being indiscriminate, and on required notification, was not agreed with, and the UK Government’s case was upheld by the Court. The regime was proportionate and necessary, and recognised the reality of how some of this has to be dealt with.
I can give all colleagues confidence that the judicial commissioners are formidable, independent individuals. Lord Justice Fulford and his judicial commissioners are all senior or retired judges. I promise the Committee that they will not be a pushover. I have met them a considerable number of times; as members of the judiciary, they are not shy about asking when they think something is wrong.
We should be proud of where we have ended up. I would not like to see any further erosion of the balance that we have, which is a gentle one. I think Liberty is before the court at the moment trying to prevent us even from having communications data; we would not then even be able to find out about someone’s telephone when they were arrested. That would, in my view, be unacceptable and put the public at huge risk. It is time for some people to put aside their purity and realise that this is a balance between our constituents’ rights to life and to privacy. I think we have got the balance just about right. That is why I am very grateful for all parties’ support for tonight’s measures.
The guidelines are there to be used by the people using the powers. If they follow them and the judicial oversight, we will be in a better place—one where our rights are protected, but our law enforcement and intelligence services can get on and do the job of keeping us safe.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister back to her place. On the proper stewardship of trees, is she satisfied that the existing arrangements between the Forest Holidays group and the Forestry Commission fully accord with the commission’s statutory objectives?
Dr Coffey
We are not happy about the arrangement that the Forestry Commission has entered into with Forest Holidays, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked Colin Day—the Department’s non-executive director and chair of its audit and risk committee—to undertake a review. He will be investigating the matter carefully.
[Official Report, 12 July 2018, Vol. 644, c. 1092.]
Letter of correction from Dr Coffey:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) during questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
The correct response should have been:
Dr Coffey
We are not happy about the arrangement that the Forestry Commission has entered into with Forest Holidays, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked Colin Day—the Department’s non-executive director and chair of its audit and risk committee—to undertake an internal audit review. He will be investigating the matter carefully.
Petitions
Home Education: draft guidance and consultation
Proposed Closure of Accrington Victoria NHS walk-in centre
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
Dangerous Dogs Act: Staffordshire Bull Terriers
(6 years, 5 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
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 222419 relating to including Staffordshire Bull Terriers in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
It is a great pleasure to be here under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Walker. I admit that I am no expert on this subject; my only qualification to open the debate is that I have been bitten twice, both times while leafleting and both times by that breed of dog made famous by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle—the ones that do not bark. I therefore intend to outline the arguments briefly to allow others with more expertise than me the time to speak.
The petition was started by those opposed to suggestions in some quarters that Staffordshire bull terriers should be included on the list of prohibited dogs maintained under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Those of us who are a bit long in the tooth will remember that the Act was introduced following a lot of reports in the press about dogs—in particular pit bull types—mauling people.
The Act forbids the keeping of certain breeds, unless the dog is granted an exemption certificate, adding it to the index of exempted dogs. In that case, the owner has a certificate of exemption for the lifetime of the dog, but they must comply with any restrictions placed on him or her, such as keeping the dog muzzled in public. It is an offence to breed from, sell or exchange any dogs listed in the Act—even an individual dog that has an exemption certificate.
Those of us who, again, have been around for a while know that legislation that gets passed quickly, with agreement from both Front Benches, is usually flawed, and many people have argued from the beginning that the Dangerous Dogs Act has serious flaws. It was intended to prevent people from keeping and breeding dogs for fighting, but for a long time it has been argued that it is easy to get around the legislation—for example, by claiming that the dog is a Staffordshire bull terrier or an American bulldog, or by having a crossbreed, which is perfectly legal.
Other people have argued that such breed-specific legislation, or BSL, is the wrong way to proceed anyway. For example, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has said that whether a dog is dangerous is
“influenced by a range of factors including how dogs are bred, reared and experiences throughout their lifetime”.
The British Veterinary Association states:
“we are opposed to any proposal or legislation that singles out particular breeds of dogs”.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend leading to the key criticism of that piece of legislation, which is that the police, and particularly the courts, ought to be taking on irresponsible and vicious owners, instead of showing such reluctance, as they have done on so many occasions?
Helen Jones
I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that there are a lot of irresponsible and vicious owners about, and I shall come on to that.
Another flaw in the Act was that the penalties for having a dog that is dangerously out of control applied at first only if the dog was in a public place or in a private place where it had no right to be; in other words, the Act did not apply to dogs that were at home, so to speak. That was remedied under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, apart from exemptions involving people who were trespassers and who were in or about to enter a home.
We come down to two questions. Is breed-specific legislation the right way to proceed? If so, should Staffordshire bull terriers be included under that legislation?
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I have fond memories of my family’s childhood pet, Roger, who was a Staffordshire bull terrier of great character. I wanted to get him into Hansard because he deserves it—he gave us a lot of pleasure as children. To add the breed to the Dangerous Dogs Act would be a travesty. Does the hon. Lady agree that the problem is that people create dangerous dogs? People, not dogs, are the problem.
Helen Jones
That is often the case, and I am glad the hon. Gentleman managed to get Roger into Hansard—let us all hear it for Roger! That is the argument that organisations such as the RSCPA put:
“Breed is not an appropriate criterion to assess a dog’s risk to people.”
However, the RSPCA also argues that the existing legislation does not promote animal welfare. It had to put down 232 dogs in two years, many of which it says could have been rehomed—I have reservations about the “many” because I am not sure how many people want to take on dogs listed under the Act. The RSPCA also said that, over the time we have had the legislation, admissions to hospital for injuries inflicted by dogs have risen. In fact, they rose by 76% between 2005 and 2015. There is also no scientific evidence to tie those injuries to the prohibited breeds.
As someone who is fairly neutral in the debate, I would like more information about that, simply as a precaution. Are we admitting more people to hospital than we used to? Are non-prohibited breeds causing the injuries? Or are too many dogs being kept in less than ideal conditions? All of us have met such dogs when canvassing—big dogs kept in small houses or flats without enough space to exercise and so on. Perhaps those conditions make the dogs more likely to bite.
We have to take the matter seriously. After all, about 21,000 people a year in England suffer a dog bite, and most of them are going about their normal business—for example, postal workers or delivery drivers. We need to find a way to protect them. In fact, 37 people have died in dog attacks since the Act was introduced.
The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is chaired so ably by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), is looking at the issue. The evidence it has had so far from animal welfare organisations and dog behaviourists—I did not even know that that was a job until I started to look into this—has been overwhelmingly in favour of looking at deed not breed when considering dogs.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, however, supports a different approach. PETA has argued that Staffordshire bull terriers and American bulldogs ought to be added to the list of prohibited breeds. Its argument—if I may summarise it—is that those breeds are abused and neglected to make them fiercer, and it cites a number of incidents involving attacks. For example, last year an owner was killed in an attack by a Staffordshire bull terrier, and earlier this year, two of those dogs turned on a smaller dog and ripped it to shreds. PETA also recalled a 2012 incident when five police officers faced a pit bull-type dog. One of them ended up requiring skin grafts, two others were hospitalised, and three bullets were needed to stop the attack.
John Spellar
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Before she moves on, I must say that I find it surprising that we give any credence to that ridiculous organisation. Its main intervention previously has been attacks on anglers in the United Kingdom, which would not find favour with the huge number of anglers in the west midlands or indeed with you, Mr Walker.
Helen Jones
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his sterling defence of anglers.
I am simply trying to sum up the various views on this issue. Our petitioners say that these dogs make very loyal and loving pets and faithful companions—the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) mentioned his dog. On the one hand, the RSPCA promotes a more holistic view of dealing with dangerous dogs, with more education—especially for children—a better legal framework and greater enforcement of the law, along with more research into what makes a dog bite in the first place. By contrast, PETA would say that these breeds are kept, abused and fought because of their breed, and therefore should be banned. I am fairly agnostic in all this. We need much better information on which breeds are responsible for many of the injuries. Is there a pattern?
The League Against Cruel Sports says that the number of reported dog fights has risen sharply, from 72 in 2013 to nearly 500 last year. I do not doubt the figures, but I think we need to look behind them and find out whether they are increasing or whether the public and the police are getting better at reporting and dealing with these things. After all, dog fighting was rife in the 19th century, but there were no reports of it because there was no law against it.
John Spellar
The fact is that an organisation wishes to blacken the name of Staffordshire bull terriers, but this is—I say this as, I think, the only Member here from the old Staffordshire county—a very popular breed. As has been said, these can be, and often are, extremely good, friendly family dogs, and they are wonderful with children. It is absurd that this organisation is trying to ban them, rather than deal with the vicious owners and those who get involved in dog fighting. That should be the priority—not damning a breed that is so appreciated by so many in the west midlands.
Helen Jones
My right hon. Friend is right that there are strong arguments on the other side of the issue. Although it is undoubtedly true that we have made progress since 1991—all dogs now have to be microchipped, and we have extended the legislation to cover attacks on private land—we need to do more. What the animal welfare charities are putting forward will work very well with responsible dog owners.
The problem, as my right hon. Friend points out, is that many people who have these kinds of dogs are not responsible dog owners, but criminals. They use the dogs to fight, to defend themselves and sometimes to terrorise their entire neighbourhood, as we have seen. That is why the police have said in evidence that they are not prepared to move away from breed-specific legislation at the moment, although they might be prepared to do so in future. If we are going to do that, we will need much more evidence of what has caused the increase in dog attacks. We will also need a much stronger legal system and a better system of enforcing the law. There is no doubt that, when a number of people have these kinds of dogs, they abuse them deliberately to make them fearsome. [Interruption.]
John Spellar
I see I am no longer the only Staffordshire MP in the debate. My hon. Friend talks about the enforcement of the law. Perhaps that should start with the enforcement of microchipping—taking people to court and dealing with them when they have animals that are not microchipped or when they have damaged the microchip to make it undetectable.
Helen Jones
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are all sorts of things that we should do, because we say we are a nation of dog lovers, but what is happening out there actually shows that many people are not dog lovers at all—they abuse animals, whether unintentionally or through malice. Dogs are often abused through being kept in unsuitable conditions and not being given enough exercise. Others are abused deliberately to make them more likely to attack. We need to look at that.
I am unconvinced about whether we should have a list of prohibited breeds at all, and certainly about whether Staffordshire bull terriers should be on it. I look forward to the other contributions to the debate and to the Select Committee’s report, which I am sure will be of great use in deciding how we move forward, both to protect animals from abuse and to protect the public.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who put the case very well. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is about to bring together our report, so I must be quite careful not to say exactly what I expect will be in it, but I will set out quite clearly the evidence that we have taken so far.
I want to start with my experience of three weeks ago, when I visited Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. I came across a crossbred dog that was of a pit bull variety. I went into the pen with it—the dog was of good temperament. It had come in as a stray and had to be investigated by the police to see whether it was part pit bull terrier. The police officer decided that it was and that dog was put down. I really was quite shocked by that.
I am a farmer and I believe that any animal that is vicious and cannot be put right should be put down, but not a dog of really good temperament. Deciding whether a dog has pit bull terrier in it is not an exact science: measurements are made of the length of its nose and its conformation. The Minister is also a farmer; he knows very well that when animals are crossbred, sometimes they come out looking exactly like the parents and sometimes they look totally different. I found it shocking that the police officers went through the various measurements and worked out that there was pit bull in a dog, when the dog was of really good temperament. It should be up to Battersea to rehome that dog very carefully. While that dog is out on the street, it may well be given an exemption order to allow the owner to keep it, but the moment that dog comes in to a rescue centre, it has to be inspected and if it considered of a pit bull type, it must be put down irrespective of the dog’s temperament.
The issue is the deed not the breed. I believe that a dog of any breed in the hands of the wrong person can be made vicious by that person beating it, burning and doing all sorts of horrible things to make the dog vicious. Pit bull terriers and pit bull types account for about 20% of the total bites in the country, but a bigger percentage of them bite than do other breeds. Is the dog breed the problem, or do particular owners for particular reasons take those breeds on because they know they can be made to be dangerous and to bite?
I understand the Minister’s point of view. If we said, “Let’s abolish all breed-specific legislation,” the next time a pit bull or any of the other four banned breeds inflicted a really nasty bite, he would be rolled out on to the television and Radio 4 and asked, “Why did you do this, Minister?” Without second-guessing the Select Committee, I suspect we will recommend not total abolition of the breed-specific legislation, but an arrangement where the temperament of the dog can be given much greater consideration. In the Netherlands, for instance, dogs with good temperament can in certain circumstances be rehomed from rescue centres, provided that the new owners are made aware of the dog’s breed and the potential for danger. We can go somewhere with that. Also, there must also be a better way in the 21st century of deciding how much pit bull terrier or any other banned breed there is in a crossbred dog, whether through DNA testing or various measurements of weight and so on. The science is very inexact at the moment, which is also a problem.
Another problem for the Government is that if we are to have breed-specific legislation—I am fearful of mentioning this—we need to add breeds to the list, because other, equally vicious breeds are coming in from Canada and elsewhere as people try to get round the legislation. We need to look at all breeds of dogs and work out which are potentially dangerous and must be watched, and react to that.
I cannot stress enough the importance of the dog’s temperament. We need to come down even more heavily on people who are vicious to their dogs, who breed dogs to be dangerous and who take them out in the streets to be dangerous. It is not really the dogs who need to be sorted out; it is the people. Of course, for the postmen and others who have to go on to people’s properties, recent legislation that makes owners more liable for the actions of their dogs on their own property is very much a step forward and all good stuff.
The Minister will probably talk about microchipping. That is good, but again anyone who goes to Battersea will find that only about 30% of the dogs there have accurate microchips. A dog may have a microchip, but often what is on it is largely fictitious. That is another problem.
The Minister has a problem in that the law on breeding and dealing with dogs works only for the law-abiding. If we are not careful, we will make the laws stricter and stricter for those who microchip their dogs and rear and look after them properly, but those who want to be outside the law will still be outside the law. I suspect that the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who in his place, will talk about dog fighting, which has been a real problem in Northern Ireland.
There are all sorts of issues around dangerous dogs and there is a reason for breed-specific legislation, but a key requirement is much sounder science for working out breed, especially of crossbreeds. We must also be able to consider the temperament of the dog, and those of good temperament, irrespective of breed, should be allowed to live. Likewise—this is the other side of the argument—a thoroughly vicious dog of any breed should be put down. As 80% of all dog bites are from non-banned breeds, we could argue that by concentrating on breed-specific legislation, we are missing the real point. We should be bringing in antisocial behaviour orders, more penalties and five-year sentences for those who are cruel to animals. Let us get all that on the statute book and deal with the people out there who are making their animals vicious. Then, quite rightly, we will deal with vicious dogs when they appear.
I was a bit concerned when a Minister in the House of Lords suggested to the Select Committee that we were being soft on dangerous dogs. That is not our point of view. A dangerous dog needs to be dealt with. If its temperament cannot be changed it must be euthanased, but there must be a way for dogs with good temperament to survive and prosper, not be given a death sentence just because they are of a certain breed. That is where we can learn from countries across Europe. Even Scotland now has different laws in this area—the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), the spokesman for the Scottish National party, is a good member of the Select Committee. We must all work together and look at what is happening across the United Kingdom, because we could do a lot better.
We may not have to repeal the legislation, but we must look at how it is enforced and administered. The police told us in evidence that they want some changes. There is a big responsibility on a police officer who has to work out whether a dog lives or dies, and often different officers will make different decisions because the science is inexact. One officer may say that a dog is perfectly fine and should live, but another will say that there is too much of a banned breed in it, and it must be put down. We must clarify the position.
This is not an easy situation, but at the moment I am very concerned. I do not want to go to Battersea Dogs Home again and see a dog of really good temperament being put down. That is absolutely wrong. We need to find a way to protect social workers, postmen and everyone who needs to go into people’s homes to work.
Helen Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one simple way to protect postal workers and others would be to ensure that those with dogs running free in their house have either an outside post box or a cage behind their letter box? Any dog can bite if it feels threatened.
Neil Parish
The hon. Lady makes a good point. The postal workers’ unions that gave evidence to the Committee talked about that—especially the cage behind the door. All of us in the Chamber who have canvassed and pushed letters through letter boxes will know that on reaching some doors it is possible to hear the dog barking, but the most terrifying dog is the one that waits behind the door without making a sound. The moment the leaflet is put through the door there is a tremendous whack, and the dog either bites the person’s fingers or gets the leaflet and tears it to shreds. That might be a bonus if it is one of my leaflets.
This is a serious issue, because postmen have to go to those houses. We are changing the rules on that. When dogs have bitten—hopefully before that—putting in a cage would protect the post. If dogs are protecting the property, but that makes it difficult for anyone to go there, there should be a letter box positioned outside the entrance, so that it is not necessary to go in. A dog is territorial and likes to protect its owner and their property, so when people enter that property it is one of the most difficult things for any dog—a collie or any other type. I have had to retreat from a number of farms using a dustbin lid to fend off the dog as I got out. I have then thrown the dustbin lid back in the garden, saying “By the way, you will find your dustbin lid in the garden, because I had to protect myself from the dog.” The dog might not be vicious, but it might still nip and protect the property.
We have to deal with all those things, and I digress a little. I wish the Minister well, and it is good that the petition is being debated, because there is a problem, but if we sit down and deal with it calmly we can sort it out. We need to do cross-party and cross-departmental work on it, with the Home Office as well as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Education is also relevant, as we need to educate children in school about animal welfare and explain to children and young people that, although there are families in which dogs are treated badly, there are better ways to handle them.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I do not propose to detain the House long, as so much common sense has been spoken so far.
I rise to defend the honour of Staffies and Staffordshire, as the House would expect—not as the owner of a dog but as someone who has had the great pleasure of encountering many wonderful dogs including many wonderful Staffies. As the petition says:
“It would be a terrible tragedy for the dog lovers of the UK to lose the right to own one of these great companions. We are calling on Parliament to save our staffies and not have them banned as dangerous dogs, because they are not. People create dangerous dogs, people are the problem.”
I entirely agree with those sentiments. I also speak on behalf of my fellow Staffordshire Members of Parliament, who could not be present for the debate—in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), who has asked me to say some things for her. As might be expected, there are a substantial number of signatories to the petition from Staffordshire—and, indeed, from across the border in south Cheshire. For instance 400 people signed in Crewe and Nantwich and 270 signed in Congleton. There were 458 signatures from my constituency, and Newcastle-under-Lyme, the constituency where I live, came top with 485.
As can be imagined, the Staffie holds a special place in people’s hearts, and I want to say a few words about the mascot of the now disbanded—but hopefully to be reinstated in the future—Staffordshire Regiment. The mascot in question is called Watchman V. The mascot tradition in the regiments of south Staffordshire stretches back to the 19th century. In 1882 the South Staffordshire Regiment was ordered to march with Lord Wolseley to the relief of General Gordon, who was besieged in Khartoum. They entrained at Cairo with their Staffordshire bull terrier, Boxer. Unfortunately he leaped from the moving train and was seen lying unconscious or dead—or so they thought—at the side of the track. A few days later the regiment was encamped at Assiut, awaiting orders for the final phase of the march, when a thin and bedraggled dog staggered into the camp and collapsed. Boxer had walked more than 200 miles along the scorching desert railway track to rejoin his regiment—a true soldier.
From then on the tradition of having a Staffordshire bull terrier as a mascot continued with the South Staffordshire and North Staffordshire Regiments and eventually the combined battalions of the Staffordshire Regiment. Watchman V continues his duties today as part of the Staffordshire Regimental Association, holding the rank of colour sergeant. In 2016 Staffordshire MPs as a group entered Colour Sergeant Watchman V in the Westminster Dog of the Year competition. I am glad to say he overwhelmingly won the public vote, so as you can see, Mr Walker, his is a popular breed. Watchman visits schools to teach children about safe interaction with dogs. There is a campaign at the moment to build a life-size bronze statue of him in Tamworth, as a tribute to the mascots, the handlers over the years, and the Staffordshire regimental family.
A positive view of Staffies is widely held. The animal welfare sector, including the Kennel Club, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Dogs Trust and Blue Cross, is united in its view that Staffordshire bull terriers should not be added to the existing list of banned breeds under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, the Chairman of the Select Committee, has expounded in detail and extremely wisely what should be done. The Committee is considering the matter at the moment, so I will not go into detail about it, but I believe we need to deal with dangerous dogs effectively and sensibly—not, from now on, in a breed-specific way such as the proposal to put Staffies on the list of dangerous dogs.
The law was reformed under the coalition Government and, rightly in my view, greater emphasis was put on tackling irresponsible dog ownership. The truth is, as many have said, that dogs of any breed can become dangerous if they are not trained, or if they are put in the wrong hands. Owners are responsible for their dogs’ behaviour. Vilifying an entire breed goes against scientific evidence and is not good policy, so I am delighted by the clarity of the Government statement. It is great to see such a brief Government statement. It says they have no intention of prohibiting the keeping of Staffordshire bull terriers. Would that all Government policy could be as clear and brief as that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton has said, the Dogs Trust has concerns about breed-specific legislation in general. He also said that a number of countries, including the Netherlands, have moved away from that approach. I believe that DEFRA is currently reviewing the issue and I look forward to seeing the conclusions. It would be a terrible tragedy for the dog-lovers of the UK to lose the right to own one of the great companions we have been talking about. I am delighted that the Government have no intention of bringing that about. It has been an honour to speak in the debate on behalf of Staffies.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who led the debate so well on behalf of the Petitions Committee. She said that she is no expert, but she put forward good arguments. As hon. Members will find out, I am no expert on the subject either, but I am a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is considering the relevant legislation, which is why I have been given the pleasure of summing up for the Scottish National party.
In a way it is strange to be having this debate about a petition against a suggestion from an animal rights organisation. People are so concerned about the suggestion that they are getting their retaliation in first by launching this petition. Usually, petitions are launched because of Government intentions or something the Government have already done, so it is certainly unusual that it is not the Government getting a bashing today.
I am a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and it sums up this place for me that—as the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), has said—we have already had a Minister in front of the Committee to discuss the existing legislation, but that Minister is a Lord in the other place, and therefore we have another Government Minister here to respond to the petition, rather than the Minister who is responsible for the legislation itself. It seems a bit outdated, to say the least.
Turning to the contributions, we heard first from the hon. Member for Warrington North. She started off talking about dangerous dogs and her experience of being bitten twice while out leafleting or canvassing. I share her experience because I have had the same thing. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, the problem is the silent dog that lies in wait and manages to pounce way, way higher than anyone would ever expect a wee dog to be able to pounce. It was amazing how quickly I moved my finger, even though it was too late. I also discovered that trying to soldier on and do further leafleting was a bit of a lost cause when I was dripping blood on to the next door that I went to and on to the leaflets. I thought, “That’s no way to win votes,” so unfortunately I had to give up that day.
The hon. Member for Warrington North is also right about what happened in 1991. There were some high-profile cases and the media demanded some action, which resulted in rushed and flawed legislation. That legislation is still on the statute books, and it should certainly be reviewed. She said that from her perspective there are two questions that we must address: whether breed-specific legislation is the correct tool and, if so, whether Staffordshire dogs should be added to that. However, running through her contribution and those of others was the idea that it is not necessarily the dogs themselves but irresponsible owners who need to be tackled.
The Chair of the Select Committee said that he would not give away any preview of what will be in the Committee’s report, but it might have saved me a bit of work if he had done that. He highlighted the harrowing visit to Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, which illustrated to him the risks of breed-specific legislation and how it is interpreted, and the fact that dogs with good temperaments are being put down. That is inhumane, it makes no sense and it is illogical, and it underlines the flaws in the breed-specific legislation.
The hon. Gentleman gave an interesting statistic that, while 20% of bites can be attributed to terrier-type dogs, they make up a greater percentage of the dog population. That in itself shows that other considerations apply. He said that we need to look at the matter in the round, which I would suggest is a hint of what might end up in the report, because looking at it in the round would suggest to me perhaps having a risk register rather than breed-specific legislation that completely outlaws breeds. I may be wrong, but that is certainly something I am thinking about. He also highlighted the important issue that not all dogs are microchipped and the information in the microchips may not be valid; that is also something we need to look at to ensure that it is done correctly.
In a light-hearted anecdote, the hon. Gentleman also finished with a story about visiting a number of farms where he had to retreat using dustbin lids to fend off dogs. It reminded me of the Billy Connolly joke that what tigers fear most in the world is chairs, because that was what was used to control them in circuses of old. With recycling and the fact that our bins have changed, I worry about how the hon. Gentleman will now arm himself against dogs; I am sure that a wheelie bin is awkward to wheel at speed.
We heard from the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) who, not surprisingly, defended the honour of Staffordshire terriers, as the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) also did. It was interesting to hear how the Staffordshire dog came to be the mascot of the Staffordshire regiment. I noted the hopes of the hon. Member for Stafford that the currently disbanded regiment would be reborn in the future. Unfortunately, given the cuts we have seen to the armed services, I think that is a forlorn hope, but I wish him well in lobbying the Government on that.
Importantly, the hon. Gentleman also highlighted the fact that the RSPCA, the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust and Blue Cross are against Staffordshire terriers being added to breed-specific legislation. Given the quality of the work those organisations do and their reputations, it is important that we listen to them, and their views underline the case. He concluded by saying that we should not vilify an entire breed.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I apologise that I was not here for the start of the debate; I was chairing a Delegated Legislation Committee. I have owned two Staffordshire bull terriers—in fact, I have had Staffordshire bull terriers for 25 years of my life—and they are the most amazing, gentle dogs. The very suggestion that they should be added to the flawed Dangerous Dogs Act—which should never have been brought in in the first place and which, in my view, has had no effect in making things safer for people in this country—is extremely foolhardy. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that legislation on animal welfare and the safety of the public regarding dogs should be based on dealing with the deed, the action or the use of the dog by irresponsible owners, not on picking on Staffordshire bull terriers, or for that matter any other breed?
Alan Brown
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. As he said, he has had Staffordshire bull terriers for 25 years. Loving, caring dog owners create loving dogs. That is how it is. Dangerous dogs are created by irresponsible owners, sometimes through neglect and sometimes through wilful behavioural training to create a dangerous dog, which is alarming in itself. We need to tackle those people, rather than worrying about specific dog breeds.
I will touch briefly on some of the evidence I picked up on in the Select Committee inquiry. This might or might not find its way into the report, and I might be at odds with other Committee members, but it seemed to me that the police have said that they are open to changes to breed-specific legislation. They say that other measures are needed to allow controls to be put in place and allow people to tackle dangerous dogs, but they are certainly receptive to changes to BSL.
There needs to be greater information-sharing between various local authorities and individual police forces across England and Wales, so that anyone who is banned from owning dogs because they have had dangerous dogs is tracked if they move from one area to another. That is something that needs to be looked at. Resources for local authorities seem to be an issue, and in some cases, a clearer understanding is needed between the polic and the relevant local authority as to who has most responsibility for enforcing the legislation on dangerous dogs.
As the Chair of the Select Committee said, the Scottish Government have introduced additional legislation in Scotland, the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which touches on the general theme of this debate—looking at deeds rather than individual dogs. That Act was,
“designed to highlight the responsibilities of dog owners by putting in place a regime that will identify ‘out of control’ dogs at an early juncture”.
It includes measures to try to change the behaviour of these dogs and, of course, their owners, because owners need to be able to train their dogs and implement the change before the dogs become dangerous. It is about early intervention. That buzz phrase is used quite a lot in politics, but it is clearly important in ensuring the welfare of dogs. The 2010 Act also created a dog control notice regime that permits officers—appointed and authorised by the local authority—to issue dog control notices to irresponsible owners of any dog found to have been out of control, while also setting out what “out of control” means.
The general theme of the debate has definitely been about tackling owners, rather than vilifying individual breeds. There is certainly a case for looking at the existing legislation and bringing forward improvements. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for introducing the debate. There has not been a huge number of speakers, but those who have spoken feel strongly about this issue. It has been an excellent debate, with some really good information shared.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, was particularly interesting and well informed. I was pleased by a lot of what he said, because I started to become interested in this topic on a visit similar to the one he described. I was also particularly interested by what the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said about the regimental mascot, which I was not aware of. I wish him all the luck in the world in getting a statue in place. That would be a fantastic tribute.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown)—I remembered his constituency—said about the 2010 Act. I was not aware of it, so I will be interested to take a look at it. I was also interested to hear his idea of using a chair, rather than a dustbin lid, to fend off dogs. When I go canvassing, I fill my pockets with dog biscuits, which I find can be very useful.
I would like to talk about an experience I had that was similar to the one the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton had. I launched Labour’s animal welfare plan in February from the RSPCA’s Harmsworth Hospital, in north London. As part of that visit I was introduced to a lovely dog, Bailey, who had a great temperament. The hospital staff and I believed that he could have been rehomed, but because he had been typed as a pit bull, that, sadly, could not happen, and, tragically, he was put to sleep the week after my visit. I told the staff that I would take him because he was such a lovely dog, although I did not tell my husband. I was deeply shocked that this dog, which had never done any harm to anybody, was to be put down because of what he looked like.
Neil Parish
The shadow Minister makes a very good point: the dog had done no harm. It was of good temperament and did not have a record of biting people. In this country, we are usually considered innocent until proven guilty, whereas these dogs are considered guilty because they are of a particular breed, and they are then put down, irrespective of temperament. That is exactly the point.
Sue Hayman
That is exactly the point: the dogs are found guilty before having done anything wrong. We have heard that people can secure exemptions from the law in court. However, I said that I would take that dog, that I was a dog owner and that I had always had dogs, so those exemptions are clearly not in place for dogs in rescue centres. Many dogs are being put down entirely unnecessarily.
We heard that we have to ensure that legislation to keep people safe from dangerous dogs has to jointly prioritise public safety and animal welfare. We need to be a lot more pragmatic when it comes to banning certain dogs based only on their breed. As has been said, all dogs can bite and all dogs can be dangerous in the wrong hands, regardless of breed or type or whether they happen to look a certain way. It is therefore clear to me, and to the many animal welfare charities quoted, that any action to tackle dog bites and all other instances of canine aggression must focus on the deed, not the breed.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The hon. Lady makes entirely the right point. When I was the Lord Mayor of Belfast, there was the case of a dog called Lennox, which hon. Members can look up online. It led to 200,000 complaints to the council, death threats to council officers and ammunition technical officers defusing a suspect device in city hall. Lennox was lifted because of his breed and appearance; his temperament was absolutely fine. Having been moved from secret location to secret location during two years of detention, Lennox developed behavioural issues that ultimately led to his destruction. There is a role for councils and those involved in looking after the welfare of dogs, but they should not do anything of detriment to family dogs with otherwise perfectly good temperaments.
Sue Hayman
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. We absolutely have to remember that it is often how we treat an animal that creates certain behaviours.
The RSPCA tells me that, year on year, Staffordshire bull terriers are the one breed that ends up in its centres most often, through no fault of their own. They can often be overlooked because of the preconceptions many people have about them, which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, are simply wrong. As we have heard, Staffies can make great pets, with the more than 150,000 signatures to the petition demonstrating how strongly Staffordshire owners feel. Like any dog, with the right owner, they make great pets.
In evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s ongoing inquiry into dangerous dog legislation, the RSPCA said that it believes breed-specific legislation—BSL—is ineffective in terms of public safety and results in the unnecessary suffering and euthanasia of many dogs. It says that BSL should be repealed, and issues around human safety tackled using education and effective legislative measures that do not unnecessarily compromise dog welfare.
The RSPCA goes on to say that BSL fails to deliver what it was designed to do. It has not reduced hospital admissions from dog bites, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North. It has not improved public safety, and it has not reduced the numbers of dogs of the breeds or types it legislates against. The RSPCA wants dog control legislation reformed such that BSL is repealed and replaced, education is put in place to ensure that high-risk behaviour towards dogs is avoided, and all severe and fatal dog bite incidents are properly investigated.
Just before Easter, I was lucky enough to visit Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, and I again met an abandoned dog that was about to be put down after being typed. Staff had exactly the same concerns that we have already heard about. I also visited another rescue centre—Oak Tree, near my constituency, in Cumbria—and had the same situation again. This is not unusual; every time I visit a rescue centre, I am presented with exactly the same situation. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home believes that the Dangerous Dogs Act is ineffective at protecting the public, because, as we have heard, there has been no appreciable reduction in dog attacks since it was passed.
Andrew Rosindell
I am pleased to hear the hon. Lady say that. She is coming at this from exactly the right angle. The Dangerous Dogs Act was brought in in 1991 and was a knee-jerk reaction. It has never been effective and has always been completely flawed. There should surely be cross-party consensus to review this legislation so that we have an effective law that protects the public and is not cruel to animals—that have committed no crime and have never bitten anybody—because of their appearance or breed. As the shadow Minister for animal welfare prior to the 2010 general election, I championed reviewing the legislation; sadly, this Government have not yet looked at it properly and dealt with it. Will the hon. Lady work with the Minister to try to find a consensus? The current legislation has to be reviewed and changed.
Sue Hayman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I would be happy to work with anyone to improve the legislation, because this is about animal welfare and treating dogs fairly, but also about protecting people. At the moment, the legislation does not work for either of those.
Battersea argues for the abolition or, at the very least, reformation of BSL. It calls it a sticking plaster that does not prevent public harm, and it wants the Government to amend the legislation to ensure that dogs are not put down simply because of their appearance.
It is also right that proper education and community engagement processes should be in place to help the public better understand dog behaviour and to encourage responsible ownership. I am a pet owner—I have a dog, a cat and all sorts—and being a pet owner is so rewarding, but people need to understand, particularly when taking on a dog, that it is a huge responsibility. People need to be better educated when they buy their dogs in the first place. It is clear that, in the wrong hands, any dog has the potential to injure either people or other animals. I have a Labrador, and when I was researching this issue, I was horrified to find out that many Labradors carry out attacks. My dog is so soft that I cannot imagine that it would do that. It just shows that, in the wrong hands, any dog can be dangerous.
To sum up, we need to ensure that we focus on ownership rather than on a particular breed or type of dog. I say to the Minister that it is really important that the legislation has a proper, thorough review. It would be good if that were carried out by DEFRA and we could have some timescales as to when he will be able to look into this issue, because it seems to me, from this debate and from discussion further afield, that there is a pretty broad consensus that what we have on the statute book at the moment simply is not working to protect either people or dogs.
I am very pleased that the Government, in their response to the petition, have said that they have no plans to ban Staffies. I look forward with interest to the EFRA Committee’s report and hope that the Minister will pay close attention to its recommendations.
I shall finish with a plea to the Minister from dog owners everywhere. Let us get the legislation right to protect both the public and dogs. We need the right education to be in place, and we need to focus on how we can effectively tackle irresponsible dog owners, not just the dogs themselves.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on the way she introduced the debate. The petition has attracted more than 160,000 signatures, which shows how strongly people feel about this issue. I understand that the petition was a reaction to a submission made by PETA to the ongoing inquiry on dangerous dogs by the EFRA Committee. Today, we have heard a number of quite powerful and detailed speeches, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who, appropriately, stood up for this breed, which hails from his part of the world. I, too, was very interested to hear the history of the Staffordshire bull terrier as a mascot for the Staffordshire Regiment and the fascinating story of the genesis of that.
I am sure that all hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who also gave a personal account of his love of this breed, will be pleased to know that the Government have no plans at all to add Staffordshire bull terriers, or any other type of dog, to the list of prohibited dogs. Staffordshire bull terriers are a popular breed in this country and have shown themselves to be a good family pet. Like any dog, they should be socialised at an early age and be properly trained to avoid behavioural problems, but for anyone thinking of taking on a dog, there is no reason why a Staffordshire bull terrier should not be considered. My noble Friend Lord Gardiner, who leads on this policy area, has given evidence to the EFRA Committee and confirmed that there is no intention to add further types of dog to the prohibited list.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) suggested that it was disappointing that I am responding to the debate by virtue of the fact that the Minister responsible is a Lords Minister, but let me reassure him that I have been around DEFRA long enough to have had to go in to bat on most issues—indeed, I was the Minister responsible for companion animals and looked closely at this issue for about two years, and I will return to that point.
It should be noted that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is not just about banned breeds. Section 3 makes it an offence to allow any dog to be dangerously out of control. That is the case for all dogs, regardless of breed or type. There are also other preventive measures, which I will mention later, that are applicable to all types of dog.
As the hon. Member for Warrington North and others pointed out, the genesis of the 1991 Act was as a reaction to a series of serious dog attacks at that time. The Act prohibits four types of fighting dog—types traditionally used for dog fighting—and those are the pit bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro. Of the four types, the pit bull terrier was by far the most popular. Indeed, pit bulls had been associated with a number of serious attacks on people, and it was decided to take action against their ownership. The other three types of dog were added primarily because it was considered that, having been identified as either fighting types or as sharing the characteristics of fighting dogs, they should be prohibited to prevent people from turning to them instead of the pit bull terrier. However, I am told that we have very few of the other three types in this country and none of the Fila Brasileiro type.
Adding dogs to the list of prohibited types would need to be done on the basis of proportionate risk of harm to people. Under the Act, it is an offence to breed from, sell or exchange the four breeds of dog. That approach is supported by the police. It should be noted—perhaps not enough people are aware of this—that the courts can already allow owners to keep prohibited dogs if they are not a danger to public safety. Account must be taken of the dog’s temperament and whether the intended keeper, who must have had substantial prior responsibility for the dog, is a fit and proper person, with premises suitable for the dog.
Those dogs are placed on the index of exempted dogs, which is managed by DEFRA. Currently, about 3,100 dogs are on the exempt list. They are predominantly pit bull terriers, but there are also about 10 Japanese Tosas and three of the Dogo Argentino type. For a dog to go on the index, certain conditions have to be met. The dog must be neutered. The owner has to maintain annual insurance against their dog injuring third parties. The owner has to pay an initial fee of £92.40. Dogs on the list also have to be microchipped, muzzled and on a lead in public, and they must be in the charge of someone who is at least 16 years old.
It should be noted that, when the provisions were initially brought forward in 1991, they were largely considered to be transitional arrangements. The idea was that dogs that existed in 1991 could remain on the exempt list for the rest of their lives, but those of us who are familiar with dogs and the lifespan of a typical dog will be aware that none of the dogs on the list today was alive in 1991; they are exclusively dogs that have been born since. The Government have chosen to keep that option as a way of managing this situation and enabling people to remain with their dog where it is appropriate to do so and where the courts judge that it is safe to do so.
As I said, in addition to the restrictions on certain fighting dogs, it is an offence under section 3 of the Act to allow any dog to be dangerously out of control. There are severe penalties for allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control; indeed, we increased the penalties in 2014 to three years for allowing a dog to attack an assistance dog, five years if a dog injures someone and 14 years if a dog kills someone.
A number of hon. Members have talked about “deed not breed”. I am well aware of that campaign, which is being run by a number of animal welfare charities. I understand the superficial attraction of that approach, but let me talk about the evidence that supports the Government’s position. We consider the prohibition on the four banned breeds to be a valuable tool in the battle against irresponsible ownership of dogs.
The prohibition on the pit bull terrier is supported by the Metropolitan police’s own figures, which show that in 2015-16, over 19% of dogs involved in reported attacks were pit bulls. That is quite extraordinary, given that this is a banned and illegal breed. Despite that fact and despite the fact that dogs on the exempt list must be muzzled in public, that breed still accounts for almost 20% of all reported attacks. We know also that pit bulls have been involved in seven of the 31 fatal attacks that have occurred since 2005. That is highly disproportionate for one type of dog that is banned, and it underlines the need to be cautious about change in this area. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) acknowledged that, saying that to remove the restrictions would be a difficult decision for any Minister to take, knowing that, even with the ban, this breed of dog is responsible for so many attacks and that a subsequent increase in attacks may be inevitable. The issue is not just the reputational damage that a Minister might suffer, but that they would have to carry on their conscience attacks, injuries and deaths that might have been avoidable had a more cautious approach been taken.
Gavin Robinson
The Minister is making a good point, but is there a direct correlation between the attacks he outlined and dogs that are on the register? My fear is that the irresponsible owners of dogs that carry out attacks are not complying with the law, not muzzling their dog in public, and not part of an official register. They are outside the law and the deterrents are simply not strong enough.
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There are instances of attacks by dogs that are on the list, but were not muzzled in public, for example. I was aware during my time of pet dogs that were killed because people had failed to muzzle in public dogs that were on the exempt list. It is also the case, however, that the vast majority of attacks are carried out by dogs that are outside the system altogether. I do not think that gets us much further forward, because at the moment a dog that is not on the list is held illegally, and if the police come across that dog, they are able to get an order to have that dog destroyed.
Gavin Robinson
That is why we need robust sentencing and actual deterrence. A notorious family in my constituency of East Belfast has been before the courts on a number of occasions and convicted of dog fighting. The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee referred to this. They were convicted of dog fighting, badger baiting, stealing domestic cats to blood their dogs, having treadmills to train and strengthen their dogs, and using their dogs against live badgers, foxes and deer, to train them. All four members of the family were convicted and received a suspended sentence.
George Eustice
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is because of atrocious cases of the sort that he has described that I have always wanted the maximum sentence for the most egregious cruelty to animals to be raised. It is now Government policy to increase the maximum penalty to five years. We have always had in mind that activities such as dog fighting would be one of the key targets for that maximum penalty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton and others talked about Battersea Dogs & Cats Home. Back in 2011—long before my hon. Friend’s recent visit—I went there with him as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. There was a similar case of a pit bull that had to be destroyed when the officers at Battersea thought that that animal could have been rehomed. I visited Battersea again about three years ago, when I held this portfolio, to discuss the matter with them. From memory, about 27 pit bulls had come in that year, all of which had to be destroyed under the current legislation, and more than 300 other dogs had come in, a significant proportion of which were judged to be not suitable for rehoming and also had to be destroyed. Given what we know about the breed, how often would a charity actually have the confidence to rehome a pit bull with a family? My hon. Friend said the science is not precise, and there is some truth in that, but there are police officers who are trained in typing, have expertise in this area and are actually quite good at ascertaining when a dog is a banned breed, particularly when it is a pit bull.
This is not the only area where we have what one might call breed-specific legislation. In the provisions around public rights of way, there are restrictions on farmers from having dairy breeds of cattle on a footpath at certain times of the year, because dairy breeds are judged to be more aggressive and more likely to attack people than beef breeds. We know that there is a link between the behaviour and temperament of cattle and breed. In my part of the world, we have breeds such as the South Devon, which is a very laid-back, west country breed, which is calm and docile. In Scotland, they have the Aberdeen Angus, which is a slightly more feisty animal. On the continent, there are some more unpredictable breeds.
There are other powers available to the police and local authorities to deal with this issue; the Dangerous Dogs Act is not the only resort. Both have the power to tackle antisocial behaviour with dogs and to intervene early to prevent a minor incident escalating into something more serious. For example, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a range of measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, including that which involves dogs. This includes community protection notices, which aim to prevent unreasonable behaviour that is having a negative impact on the quality of life of the local community. These are being used to good effect by police and local authorities across England and Wales.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
Many people report incidents, thinking they are acting in the best interest. The reaction, therefore, will be that a police officer or a council official will be asked to go along and lift a dog from a family home, because it has been identified as being a Staffordshire bull terrier. It might only be a very good family pet, but if some well-meaning individual in the community decides to do that, an officer will have to go in and identify whether it is a Staffordshire bull terrier. We have had the same legislation in Northern Ireland associated with American pit bulls and we have had all sorts of problems identifying what breed a dog is. I am a great believer in deed not breed. We should stop hounding those who have good pets that are not creating a problem, but deal with the ones that do.
George Eustice
To reiterate what I said earlier, the Government have no plans at all to add the Staffordshire bull terrier to the prohibited list. We have been clear about that in response to the e-petition. We have trained police officers who are skilled in identifying the breed and type of dogs, in particular the pit bull terrier, which is the main banned breed that we are concerned with.
In addition to the community protection notices, many forces use non-statutory letters and notices. Those can come in the form of “coming to notice” warning letters and voluntary acceptable behaviour contracts. The notices are simple to use and remove the need for a statutory notice or prosecution. The Government are also committed to public safety and to tackling dangerous dogs through communication and education. Co-operation between the police and local authorities is vital. That is why we have endorsed initiatives such as LEAD—the local environmental awareness on dogs scheme—which encourages the police and local authorities to co-operate and share information when there has been a minor incident, and to provide advice to the dog owner on dog control issues to improve public safety. We also support an increase in awareness at all levels of society, as the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) highlighted. We are aware that many police forces and welfare charities, such as the Dogs Trust, visit schools to help to raise awareness of responsible dog ownership, and we fully endorse that work.
As several hon. Members pointed out, we need to do more to ensure that dogs are properly socialised, whatever their breed. We have done a lot to tackle the online trading of dogs through our work with the pet advertising advisory group. Dogs that are advertised and sold online have often not been socialised or raised properly. We have also introduced new requirements on pet breeding, particularly dog breeding, and on the sale of dogs to tighten up the licensing regime for people who breed and sell puppies as pets.
We have had a good and thoughtful debate on this contentious issue. I do not pretend that the legislation is perfect, and I understand that some people consider elements of it arbitrary, but for the reasons that I have given, the Government do not believe there is a case for changing the legislation at this time. We believe that we can deal with some of those exceptional circumstances through the exempted index.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for the assurance that Staffordshire bull terriers will not be added to that list, which will come as a great relief to Staffordshire bull terrier owners across the country. People like me who have owned Staffordshires know that they are fantastic, great British dogs that are not a danger to the general public.
The Minister says that he does not intend to change the legislation, but will he at least consider reviewing it to create a cross-party discussion about how we can move forward? The legislation is flawed, and if the Government say that it will never change, that will condemn many innocent dogs to death unnecessarily for a long time to come, which would be wrong.
George Eustice
I had thought we were going to finish on a note of consensus. We can all agree that the Staffordshire bull terrier should not be put on the banned list. The Government have been clear about that.
On my hon. Friend’s final point, the Government are not persuaded at the moment that there is a case for change. I discuss the issue regularly with Lord Gardiner and, as I said, it is complex. We recognise some of the arguments against the current provisions, but we also recognise the risks of deviating from the rules and laws that we have in place.
Helen Jones
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, particularly the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) for their sterling defence of Staffordshire bull terriers. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), also made an interesting contribution.
I thank the Minister for giving one of the clearest answers to a petition so far. We often have to send them back because they are not clear. His speech today was also very balanced in highlighting the need to get the legislation right and to protect people from attacks by dogs, and for that I am extremely grateful.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 222419 relating to including Staffordshire Bull Terriers in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
Written Statements
Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I have today published a written submission outlining the Government’s analysis of how the English votes for English laws principle relates to all Government amendments tabled for Report stage of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill.
The Department’s assessment is that the amendments do not change the territorial application of the Bill.
I have deposited a copy of the submission in the Libraries of the House.
[HCWS857]
Annual Human Rights and Democracy Report 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I have today laid before Parliament a copy of the 2017 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Report on Human Rights and Democracy (Cmd 9644).
The report analyses human rights developments overseas in 2017 and illustrates how the Government work to promote and defend human rights globally.
The report assesses the situation in 30 countries, that the FCO has designated as its human rights priority countries. These are Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Burma, Burundi, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Libya, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen and Zimbabwe.
This year marks the 70th anniversary year of the universal declaration of human rights.
The report I have laid before Parliament today demonstrates that the principles and values enshrined in the universal declaration remain as crucial as ever.
It also serves as a reminder that ensuring universal respect for those principles remains a difficult task.
The UK Government will continue to play a significant part in this endeavour to protect the “inherent dignity” of
“all members of the human family”.
[HCWS858]
Trade Bill: Government Amendments on Report
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)
The English votes for English laws process applies to public Bills in the House of Commons. To support the process, the Government have agreed that they will provide information to assist the Speaker in considering whether to certify the Bill or any of its provisions for the purposes of English votes for English laws. Bill provisions that relate exclusively to England or to England and Wales, and which have a subject matter within the legislative competence of one or more of the devolved legislatures, can be certified. Provision Extends to E & W and applies to England? Extends to E & W and applies to Wales? Extends and applies to Scotland? Extends and applies to Northern Ireland? Would corresponding provision be within the competence of the National Assembly of Wales? Would corresponding provision be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament? Would corresponding provision be within the competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly? Legislative consent motion needed? Part 1 (clauses 1-7) Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A Yes (S, W, NI) Part 2 (clauses 8-9) Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A No Part 3 (clauses 10-11) Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A No Part 4 (clauses 12-15) Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A No Schedules 1-3 Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A Yes (S, W, NI) Schedule 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A No Schedule 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A No
Report Stage Amendments
The memorandum, which I will place in the Libraries of both Houses, provides an assessment of Government amendments tabled to the Trade Bill, for the purposes of English votes for English laws, ahead of Report stage in the House of Commons. The Department for International Trade’s assessment is that the amendments do not change the territorial application of the Bill, for the purpose of Standing Order No. 83L of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons as set out in the explanatory notes to the Bill at introduction and as reproduced below. The above assessment is represented in tabular form below:
[HCWS856]
House of Lords
Cannabis: Medicinal Use
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rennard
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the case for permitting the use of cannabis oil on prescription.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, on 19 June the Home Secretary announced a two-part review into the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. Part 1, which is now complete, reported on the therapeutic and medicinal benefits of cannabis-related medicinal products. Part 2 will provide an assessment, based on the balance of harms and public health needs, on whether cannabis and cannabis-related products should be rescheduled.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, is it correct that no more than five people have so far applied for licences for medicinal cannabis; that the cost to hospital trusts of a licence is over £3,000 per patient; and that patients currently have to establish that cannabis treatment is a last resort for them but which has already been shown to work—something which requires them to travel abroad where access to the drugs is legal? Is this not simply quite wrong, when there are about 20,000 children in this country suffering uncontrolled epileptic seizures and who do not respond to the medication currently prescribed? Does the Minister agree that no parent should have to break the law to keep their children alive, and that cannabis medicines should be available on prescription as soon as possible?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
On whether no more than five people have applied, the noble Lord is absolutely right that not many people have done so. The panel as currently constituted is making those sorts of decisions on the back of some very urgent cases. Over a longer period, the ACMD will report to the Government on whether cannabis should be rescheduled. Of course, Dame Sally Davies has already made her interim pronouncement on 3 July. On the question of parents travelling abroad to get their children medicine, the noble Lord is absolutely right, and that is why the Government are doing exactly what we are doing: we do not want children to have to travel abroad with their parents and we are acting now in the best interests of those children.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on instituting these reviews, and I congratulate Professor Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, for making very clear in correspondence with me that she believes that cannabis needs urgently to be rescheduled—she did not use those words, but it was very clear what she meant. In view of the clarity now that cannabis has quite remarkable medical qualities for certainly a number of people with epilepsy, severe pain and so on, is any consideration being given to moving medical cannabis from the Home Office to the Department of Health so that there is clinical leadership in the decisions on this matter?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
There is not, and that is because of some of the harms associated with drugs. Yes, Dame Sally Davies made her position quite clear, but of course we work closely with our health partners. In the last few weeks, the noble Baroness will have seen the way in which clinicians and medically based evidence were used to arrive at some of the decisions that were made.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, how many people have been prosecuted and convicted in the past five years for the possession or growing of cannabis for medical purposes? If the Government realise that they have been in the wrong on this, will those people get unconditional pardons?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think the noble Baroness is deliberately conflating two different things—judging by the smile on her face, she is. We are talking about the medicinal use of cannabis, and she is talking about possession, which are two entirely different things. She knows that. Cannabis was the most commonly used drug in 2016. About 2.2 million adults aged 16 to 59 have used it, but I cannot give her the possession figures. I can tell her that there were nearly 100,000 seizures of the drug in 2016-17.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, which I have also heard on the media? In order to get access to this drug, there is a condition that you need to establish its efficacy. Is that not a Catch-22 situation? If the Government’s position is that people should not have to go abroad, how can they possibly meet the required test?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend will know that international evidence, as well as the limited evidence here, is drawn on. I hope that that answers the questions of both my noble friend and the noble Lord.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Government have said that they have no plans to decriminalise cannabis for recreational use, but according to press reports at the weekend, there was a fall in the number of people prosecuted for possession of cannabis last year, compared with 2015, of 19%, and a 34% fall in the number of cautions for possession of cannabis issued by the police over the same period. In the absence of any credible evidence that the use of cannabis for recreational purposes has recently declined sharply, is chief constables deciding, for whatever reason, not to pursue cases of possession of cannabis to anything like the same level as even two years ago really an operational decision for them, as opposed to a strategic or policy decision that should be taken by elected police and crime commissioners or the Home Secretary?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is of course up to PCCs to decide the policy priorities for their local areas, and of course those will be different in different areas depending on the prevalence of drug use. The noble Lord is right that the numbers have dropped, but—and I see this, depressingly, in Manchester—the use of synthetic cannabinoids is rife in some cities.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I am afraid that I am still confused, even after the noble Baroness’s answer to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. As I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, if a family wants to be one of those permitted to use cannabis-based medicines in this country, it must prove efficacy, but because they are not already scheduled and licensed for such use, in order to do so the family must go abroad to take those medicines. The noble Baroness herself said in her answer that it was quite inappropriate that families should have to go abroad.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
There are two things here—and this will be third time lucky, maybe. If a family has to go abroad to get medicines, we still would wish to be sure of a medicine’s safety. So it is absolutely right that we would go through a process based on medical evidence on the safety of a drug. What we have seen in the last few weeks has actually been a short-term fix to what we need to sort out: the long-term problem and the solution of providing the appropriate drugs to these children for their conditions.
Charities: National Fund
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the recent decision of the Attorney General to give over £400 million from a registered charity, the National Fund, to the Treasury.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the charitable purpose of the National Fund is the reduction of the national debt. Therefore, using the fund to reduce the national debt must be the correct approach. It is not right to use money donated for a specified charitable purpose to support one or other different cause, however worthy those other causes may be.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, actually, this charity was set up to write off, not to reduce, the national debt—so can we just keep to the facts? The national debt is £1.84 trillion, which is 4,000 times the size of this charity. In fact, the national debt grows by the size of the charity every day. Instead of helping people with charitable purposes, the Attorney-General has simply given it to his friend, the Chancellor, with no consultation or debate in Parliament and no parliamentary approval. Just because it cannot write off the debt is no reason to use it in the way suggested. Given that we now have a new Attorney-General, would the Minister agree to ask him to reconsider that decision and make sure that charitable money is used for charitable purposes?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, the noble Baroness is not quite right. It is, indeed, the charitable purpose of this charity to pay off the national debt. The issue to which she refers is around the administrative provisions within clauses 2 and 3A of the 1928 deed, which specify that it can be paid off when that condition is reached—but the purpose remains the same. However, it is the case that, after much consideration, it is now the opinion of the trustees of the charity, the Charity Commission and, indeed, the investment managers, that to resolve the situation, we should seek the permission of the High Court to use this fund to pay down the national debt.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
Could the Minister say something about a separate charitable fund held by the Treasury, which I am told arises from fines imposed on banks during the banking crisis? If that fund exists, what size is it and who can access it?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Unfortunately, it is a little beyond my brief today as it does not particularly relate to charities. However, I shall endeavour to find out that information and write to her.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, the trustees actually asked the Charity Commission for permission to give the money to charity, and they referred the matter to the Attorney-General to get permission for that purpose. Why were the wishes of the trustees actually ignored?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, the wishes of the trustees were not ignored. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that, initially, it was the view of the trustees that the money should be used for other charitable purposes. They approached the Attorney-General, who then looked into the very complex charity laws surrounding this case, and it was then agreed that this was the only reasonable way forward. To that extent, in February 2017, William Shawcross, who was then the chairman of the Charity Commission, said that he accepted the legal correctness of the approach that the Government wished to adopt.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, surely there is an easy resolution to this—a payment is made to the Chancellor to keep in the narrow terms of the trust, but the wishes of the trustees for such money to go to charity are then met by an offsetting donation by the Government, which is the kind of mechanism used for dormant bank accounts.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I do not believe that that would be within the spirit of the law at all.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, will the Government consider allocating some of these charitable funds to small charities faced with additional costs, historically associated with sleep-ins, should the successful appeal by Mencap be overturned in the future? If not, will the Government at least hypothecate some of the funds to charities in the social care sector which were running at significant deficits prior to the publication of the Green Paper on social care?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, the Attorney-General has received many suggestions on how this money could be used and I am sure that noble Lords could think of many more. However, it is simply not right for money that has been donated for one purpose—whether the donors are living or not—to be given to another cause. Therefore, it will not be in this case.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that, under circumstances in which—for whatever reason—trustees cannot fulfil their duties, the Charity Commission has the power to transfer the assets of one charity to another. If these trustees cannot fulfil their duties, because paying off the entire national debt is difficult, would it not have made more sense for the Charity Commission to have suggested that the assets be passed to another charity for good purposes? Why was that not considered?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I think I have made myself very clear on what the Charity Commission currently feels. Noble Lords looked at the Charities Act in 2011, and the Government have been through charities law fairly recently. It is a fact that the charity is required by law to adhere to the purpose of the fund, which is to pay off the national debt. It is an administrative sub-clause which requires the entire national debt to be paid off.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of Age Scotland. Charities are finding it very difficult at the moment because of cutbacks in grants from government and local government and difficulty in fundraising. Can I suggest that we ask the views of the chair of the Charity Commission on this? We will then find out whether her interest is really in favour of charities or of the Government.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I have already quoted the views of the then chair of the Charity Commission in February 2017. There is nothing to suggest that anything has changed. The Government will be proceeding as I have already explained.
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: Student Work Placements
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Aberdare
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage employers, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, to offer high-quality work experience placements to all students aged 16 to 18.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, work experience is a key component of 16 to 19 year-old study programmes, including schemes such as traineeships which are focused on supporting students’ transition into work. The new T-levels, beginning in 2020, will include industry placements, to ensure that students spend sufficient time in the workplace to develop their technical skills and prepare for skilled employment. We are committed to supporting employers who offer these high-quality placements.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, educators and employers agree that high-quality work experience is one of the most effective ways to help students find jobs. Many smaller employers are willing and able to offer placements, especially to 16 to 18 year-olds, who they believe benefit most. What can the Minister and his department do to increase the availability and take-up of such placements, for example by encouraging and enabling schools and colleges to spread work experience throughout term times, rather than cramming it into a short period at the end of the school year? What impact does he expect the new T-levels to have on the availability of work experience, particularly for non T-level students?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, the noble Lord is right that these work placements are extremely important, and that there is not a one-size-fits-all placement. We have just completed an initial industry placement pilot with 21 providers, and 20,000 placements will take place over the next year as part of the capacity and delivery plan. We will evaluate how these placements have gone and make recommendations drawn from these experiences. This will include whether they have been most successful delivered in a single block, on day release, or by any other pattern. We are also looking at how we can help SMEs more by producing guidance on how they can best take advantage of this facility.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, work experience works when it is done well. Although, as the Minister said, the Government publish some guidelines for the 16 to 19 year-old work-study programme, SMEs can struggle in the short term as well as in these longer-term programmes if they are not properly prepared and helped. Who is responsible for ensuring that all work placements reach a good standard, so that it is not just a question of checking workplace safety beforehand but of ensuring that they deliver for the benefit of the student and of the company?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, we are in the process of issuing a package of guidance for businesses, particularly aimed at SMEs; there are 10 areas of guidance in this first batch, including on how to implement industry placements, engaging students and parents or guardians, engaging staff, and the business case for industry placements. We have to accept that this will be an iterative journey as we embark on it at such scale, but we are committed to ensuring that these placements are of high quality.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that it is much more difficult for a small business to have someone in to learn exactly what it is all about than it is for huge concerns, which can take people without affecting staff numbers? I am pleased to say that as a dentist, we had a number of people come to see what it was like, and I am delighted now to go to a dentist who went into dentistry because of her visit to our surgery.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, as someone who has run SMEs for nearly 40 years I can speak with some commitment to that important part of our economy. My noble friend is right that it can be more difficult for a small business to accommodate these sorts of placements. However, they can also be much more flexible and give a young person much more exposure to every aspect of that business. As I mentioned, we are providing the resources and guidance to employers, and this whole programme will develop over the next couple of years.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, approximately 800,000 young people who are eligible to take T-levels are coming through the system, and it seems that the pilot schemes are operating in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands, as might be required. That aside, the cost of this will be significant; we are talking about a three-month placement period, not a matter of a few days. How will the Government fund this?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, we have already announced substantial funding for the T-level programme, and there are a number of key components of it, such as the technical knowledge and practical skills that are specific to a chosen industry or occupation, and an industry placement of at least 45 days in students’ chosen industry or occupation. In March of this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a specific amount—I think it was £80 million—to assist SMEs in making these placements available.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, does the definition of SMEs include small farms, so that students can get experience in farming and animal husbandry? We have a shortage of agricultural workers coming through and we know that very few young people who are not brought up in farming go on to enter agriculture at the moment, so there is a workforce need to give them high-quality experience. Would such support also cover indemnity for these farmers?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I certainly hope farmers are included, because that is how I started. At 13, I was put on by my father at 20p an hour and laid off without pay when it rained. One of the parts of the guidance we are preparing is on specific health and safety advice for industries where there is more exposure to heavy machinery, such as construction and, of course, agriculture. I therefore hope very much that young people will be involved in that.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the last question was not just about advice but possible indemnity—insurance if there is any accident. What is the position in respect of that?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, most SMEs have what is called a combined business insurance policy, which includes such things as indemnity limits for public liability. I am therefore comfortable that that would be covered, but that of course would be up to the employer to check.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the college that has been set up with the co-operation of Stansted Airport and Essex County Council, which provides on-the-spot opportunities in technical training for people in the locality. Should we not hope to see that example followed in many other places?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I am not aware of that excellent opportunity but I hope that it will provide inspiration to other employers.
General Practitioners: Indemnity Scheme
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharkey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce a state-backed indemnity scheme for general practitioners in England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, in October 2017, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced his intention to develop a state-backed indemnity scheme for general practice in England. The state-backed scheme is being designed to provide more stable, affordable cover for GPs and patients. We are working with stakeholders to design the scheme and are committed to implementing it from April 2019.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
Will the proposed scheme cover all GP-related healthcare staff who provide services for the NHS and, if not, who will be excluded? Will the scheme cover historical liabilities, as was the case when the NHS clinical negligence scheme for trusts was introduced? What additional costs will the new scheme generate for the NHS?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The scheme is intended to cover primary medical care services, which will also include integrated urgent care services and NHS primary care provided in secure environments. The scheme will certainly cover future liabilities, and cover for historic liabilities will depend on discussions with stakeholders and achieving value for money. As for the cost, this is a complex negotiation with multiple partners, and we are not in a positon to give costs at this point without prejudicing commercial interests. Suffice it to say, one intention of the scheme is to provide better value for money than those currently in existence.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the average GP paid indemnity costs that rose by 50% in a six-year period. That has had a knock-on effect of discouraging doctors from going into primary care and has been a factor in many leaving. It seems to me therefore that this is a matter of urgency, and so I am very pleased to hear that the scheme will be introduced in April next year. However, GPs are sorting out their indemnity insurance right now—they do it over the summer. What advice are the Minister and the Government giving GPs now to help them decide what the costs are? Given the shortage of GPs in this country, anything that the Secretary of State can do to encourage GPs into primary care would be a good thing.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I agree with the noble Baroness’s final point. Indeed, one reason for sorting out this scheme is that we know it is a barrier to people joining the profession and, unfortunately, encourages them to leave it. There is of course an urgency, but nevertheless it is a complex discussion with commercial partners. I can tell her that we are talking to GPs themselves and their representative organisations to make sure they understand what is at stake, what we intend to do and that we intend to introduce the new scheme in April.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, on 1 June, a DHSC spokesperson said:
“We are continuing to work closely with key stakeholders in the development of the scheme from April 2019”—
as the Minister said. The spokesperson went on:
“We will provide a further update in the near future”.
GPs need reassurance that this will not be kicked into the long grass. What is the department’s understanding of the “near future”—is it six weeks, six months or a year?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
That is a very existential question. The point is that we need to introduce the scheme by April and are absolutely committed to that. There are some very big decisions to be made on the scheme design now. We have a new Secretary of State who is getting up to speed on these issues as we speak. Our intention is to make those decisions to confirm the design of the scheme and to be able to tell GPs and other stakeholders publicly as soon as possible. We are committed to the April 2019 deadline.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, is such a scheme currently available to general practitioners in any other part of the United Kingdom?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I can tell my noble friend that the scheme we are designing is for England, the jurisdiction that the department looks after. However, the Welsh Government have announced their intention to have a state-backed scheme and we are speaking to the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to make sure that we act together in this regard.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, when the scheme is introduced, what plans are there to reduce the level of litigation in primary care, considering that the majority of primary care practitioners are independent contractors, and those who are not are employed by GP principals and not by the National Health Service?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Lord is right to highlight this issue. It is important to state that the rising cost of indemnity is not driven by a poor or worsening safety record but by the volume of activity and the rising cost of the average claim. Not only do we need to make sure that we reduce those costs, for example, by introducing a fixed recoverable cost scheme, we also need to reduce the number of safety issues so that there are fewer claims to bring in the first place.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that the costs are rising because GPs do not have sufficient time to see their patients? It is all linked to the shortage of GPs, which means that they have to see more patients for shorter periods.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare the work that I do with dispensing doctors. A particular barrier to retaining and recruiting GPs in rural areas is the pension provisions, which is the case for all professions. Will my noble friend make representations to the authorities that be in this regard as that would be a major step forward for those now coming into the profession in their 30s and 40s?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My noble friend makes an excellent point and I will certainly do so. There is an attempt not just to recruit many more GPs into service but to recruit them into hard-to-reach areas, such as rural areas, through a targeted recruitment campaign. I am sure that that is one of the areas that we will want to look at.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, is it intended that locums will be covered by the scheme?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My understanding is that the scheme is for all providers of primary medical care services under GMS, PMS and APMS contracts.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. In reducing the problem of clinical negligence, it is vital to ensure that general practitioners are able to learn from the entirety of their clinical practice. As has been heard, many work in single-handed practices. How do Her Majesty’s Government propose to ensure that there is proper learning across the primary care system to reduce errors once mistakes have been made?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Lord is quite right. I point him in the direction of the learning from deaths programme, which is attempting to do exactly that.
Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill
Monday 16th July 2018
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 View all Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 27 April 2018 - (27 Apr 2018)
Baroness Donaghy
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Monday 16th July 2018
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 View all Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, treating people with respect and dignity, no matter what their disability or condition, are touchstones of our civilised society. Those are virtues that we all seek to promote, but sometimes, even with the best intentions, they do not always materialise. For that reason, the Government have now introduced legislation to reform and improve the current deprivation of liberty safeguards system. It is fitting that we do so in the month when we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the NHS, an institution founded on those and other virtues, which have sustained it as one of the most successful and respected health and care systems in the world.
Deprivation of liberty safeguards seek to empower and protect vulnerable people in our society by ensuring that any deprivation of the liberty of people who lack capacity is always in their best interests. It is a step that is never taken lightly and always with the intent to prevent harm to the individual. Even in cases where a person who lacks capacity is unable to make decisions, there is an express duty for all involved to consider their views and wishes as far as they can be determined. Despite the existence and undeniable necessity of these protections in our society, the deprivation of liberty safeguards system as it stands today is overly technical and legalistic, placing significant burdens on people and their families. It too often fails to achieve positive outcomes for those at the heart of this process, and we too often hear that individuals, families and their carers are experiencing a process that feels “done to them” rather than with their full consent and engagement. People’s voices, and those who care for them, are not being heard; this needs to change.
What is more, report after report has provided strong evidence of the strain the system is under and of unacceptable inefficiencies. It is costly and cumbersome, and in its current state is unable to process all the necessary applications to protect human rights. Last year, reports showed that more than 108,000 people were awaiting a deprivation of liberty safeguards application; again, this needs to change.
Many noble Lords have worked hard on this issue for years, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank them for continuing to shine a light on a system in urgent need of reform. In 2014, a House of Lords Select Committee published a detailed report which concluded that deprivation of liberty safeguards were “not fit for purpose”. Again in 2017, the chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for whose tireless commitment I am especially grateful—and I am delighted to see that her train got her here in time—reported that the current system was overly complex, excessively bureaucratic and costly. More recently, the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act: Interim Report, led by Professor Sir Simon Wessely, stressed the need for,
“an appropriate calibration between resources spent on delivery of care and those spent on safeguards surrounding the delivery of that care”.
We have listened and, following a Government commission, in March 2017 the Law Commission published a review of the deprivation of liberty safeguards and Mental Capacity Act. Over three years, the Law Commission sought views from a breadth of stakeholders, exposing the system’s struggles as well as looking at the process from a user’s perspective. The evidence, analysis and recommendations, drawn from across the system, have provided further impetus for reform. In March this year, the Government published their response to the report, accepting in principle the Law Commission’s model. Since the publication of the Law Commission’s review, the Government have continued to work closely with stakeholders and we have listened carefully to them to build on that model, streamlining it to focus on the crucial protections that this Bill seeks to mandate.
The Bill will reform the process so that it is less burdensome on people, carers, families and local authorities. Not only will it ease financial burdens throughout the system, creating significant savings of more than £200 million a year which will mainly fall to local authorities, but according to the Law Commission, it will also relieve local authorities of the significant legal liability burden of more than £408 million by removing the backlog of deprivation of liberty safeguards applications. It will introduce a simpler process with increased engagement with families and other carers, and afford swifter access to justice. It will ensure that any restrictions are proportionate and help to support cared-for persons to live as freely as they can by protecting their liberty. It will allow the NHS rather than local authorities to authorise the deprivation of liberty arrangements for its own patients, enabling a more streamlined and clearly accountable process in which the NHS has a clear role in helping to afford people their rights.
The Bill will make sure that consideration of restrictions on people’s liberties will be part of their overall care planning and considered from the earliest stages, rather than a bolt-on afterthought as under the current system. The Bill will also eliminate repeat assessments and authorisations when someone moves between a care home, hospital and ambulance as part of their treatment. In the words of Law Commissioner Nicholas Paines QC:
“This new legislation … will go a long way towards addressing the flaws of the current system and better protect the most vulnerable in our society”.
The president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, Glen Garrod, has also indicated support for the Bill, observing that:
“Once enacted, it is hoped that this law will help ensure the protection of liberty of all people who lack mental capacity more effectively and efficiently than under the present Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards”.
Finally, before beginning debate on the Bill, I want to recount the seminal case study that underlines the importance of the legislation before us. It illustrates the role that this law plays in our society when protecting and empowering people. It illustrates the need to put individuals, carers and family members at the heart of a system, and reminds us that the framework fundamentally exists to ensure that vulnerable people are cared for and looked after. A man—HL—came to live with Mr and Mrs E, his carers, under a resettlement scheme from Bournewood Hospital, where he had lived for 32 years. HL’s carers found it rewarding to see him benefit from living in a family setting. Gradually, he became more confident and progressed beyond all expectations. HL would attend a day centre once a week, to which he travelled with the centre’s transport.
However, on one occasion, the usual driver did not collect him from home. Rather than taking him straight to the day centre as normal, the driver took a different route. HL became increasingly agitated. The next thing Mr and Mrs E knew was that HL had been taken back into hospital and detained there. As HL cannot speak, he was unable to object. Mr and Mrs E were not allowed to visit him, apparently in case he wanted to leave with them. When HL returned after various legal proceedings he was “in a terrible state”, in the words of his carers. Eventually, a legal case brought to the European Court of Human Rights found that HL was being deprived of his liberty without the necessary legal safeguards. This ruling triggered the introduction of deprivation of liberty safeguards in 2009. The story emphasises the importance of this system and that a rights and person-centred approach is needed to deliver better public services for everyone. Up to 2 million people in our society have impaired capacity, so many of us in this Chamber will have had direct experience of it among our family and friends. It is essential that the system affords the necessary protections for the most vulnerable people.
To conclude, we have an opportunity to transform the deprivation of liberty safeguards process, improve access to human rights, support families, carers and individuals and reduce pressures on the health and care system. We have an opportunity to bring about change and I look forward to working with noble Lords to make sure that we use this opportunity to improve the welfare of some of society’s most vulnerable people. I beg to move.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, a recent report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights called for a statutory definition of what constitutes a deprivation of liberty. The Bill does not offer such a definition. If it did, we would have clarity for families and front-line professionals; without it, there is a risk. We are reminded in an excellent paper from the Library that the Law Commission, which reviewed the existing legislation, concluded that the deprivation of liberty safeguards failed to offer sufficient protection of the rights of those deprived of liberty. Indeed, all too often, according to the report, it had been “theoretical and illusory”.
The Bill widens the number of living arrangements that are covered by the current deprivation of liberty safeguards system to include any setting. For it to apply, an individual must be aged 18 or over, lack capacity to consent to the living arrangement and be of unsound mind. To be authorised by a council or hospital, the living arrangement must be “necessary and proportionate”. There are also proposals for consultation on the living arrangements and for a “pre-authorisation review”. Assessments under the proposals will be carried out by councils or hospitals unless the individual lives in a care home, in which case it would be carried out by the care home manager. The last criterion would include autistic people who live in residential care. In a response to the Law Commission, the National Autistic Society, of which I am a vice-president, welcomed the attempts to create a simplified administrative regime that could tackle the significant delays in the current system.
However, many concerns remain. In its current form, the Bill does not adequately secure the rights of autistic people. Under the current deprivation of liberty safeguards system, a deprivation of liberty needs to be in an individual’s best interests for it to be authorised. The Bill moves away from best interests. Why does it do that? Instead, to be authorised, a living arrangement must be “necessary and proportionate”. The new criteria risk losing sight of what is best for the individual and what the individual wants. Let us be wary of enacting legislation that pays scant regard to the individual, in particular an individual who, in the context of the Bill, is perhaps the most vulnerable in society.
There is a duty to consult on care arrangements. The Bill says that the purpose of this consultation is to ascertain the individual’s wishes. However, the list at paragraph 17(2) of Schedule 1 omits the individual altogether. Although an autistic person might lack capacity to decide about living arrangements, their preferences or wishes should be an important factor in any decision about their lives. I am not sure what a decision-maker is expected to do with the results of this consultation. It is not made clear whether this is part of a determination that an arrangement is “necessary and proportionate”. This needs to be clarified. I hope that it will be.
The National Autistic Society echoes concerns expressed by Mencap that this removes the rights of deputies or lasting powers of attorney to refuse the authorisation of a deprivation of liberty. Overall, the lack of inclusion of best interests, the lack of interest in trying to ascertain what the individual wants and the removal of the rights of deputies or lasting powers of attorney is most definitely a backward step in putting the individual at the centre of any decision-making process. The Bill surely should enshrine individuals’ best interests, as did the Law Commission’s proposals. The role of these interests within a determination about a deprivation of liberty must be clarified and I hope that it will be.
A pre-authorisation review is required in the Bill to agree to a deprivation of liberty. It says that this should be carried out by someone who is not involved in day-to-day care of the individual. However, the wording causes me concern. As drafted, it is not strong enough to secure independence. It will be carried out by an independent approved mental capacity professional only if it is reasonable to believe that the individual does not want to live in that arrangement. It is unclear how the reasonableness of this will be determined. The wording is too weak to secure the rights of autistic people who might lack capacity. Even more astounding, there is no duty whatever for the person carrying out a review to have met the individual whose case this person is reviewing. This simply cannot be right. The Bill must require independent reviews by an approved mental capacity professional in all circumstances.
If an individual resides in a care home the Bill’s requirements to carry out an assessment and consultation fall to the care home manager. While this would relieve some of the administrative burden on councils and hospitals, the National Autistic Society is concerned, and rightly so. First, the administrative burden will simply shift to care home managers, who are already stretched and may not have received the training needed to carry out these tasks. Secondly, the process in the Bill does not adequately safeguard against these assessments being, in effect, rubber-stamped by councils and hospitals, particularly while the duties around pre-authorisation reviews are so weak. This could lead to a conflict of interest, whereby care home managers are de facto authorisers of deprivations of liberty. The Government should consult more widely on this. Surely we need much more consultation.
The Bill requires that an authorisation can last up to 12 months. At the end of this period, it can be renewed for another 12 months or less. However, subsequent renewals may last for up to three years. Under the Care Act 2014, reviews of care and support plans should take place annually. Any deprivation of liberty should be considered within these reviews. It would be far more appropriate to allow for ongoing renewals of up to one year, to align more closely with care and support planning. I hope the Bill might be amended so that we can provide for 12-monthly reviews.
All individuals and their appropriate person should be able to access support from an independent mental capacity adviser with the right skills to challenge unnecessary deprivation of liberty. This is currently not in the Bill. Rights to independent mental capacity advisers should be extended to cover all individuals.
There is much to be concerned about in this Bill. I really hope the Government are in listening mode. They certainly need to be.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I am not saying that some Members of your Lordships’ House are not veterans on this subject, but I came in today with my hard copy of the Mental Capacity Act 2005: Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards—Code of Practice. I may be the only person who has one, but I went back to look at it over the weekend in preparation for this. I am very glad to be taking part in this debate, alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who will bring to it her fresh eyes: I think that that perhaps shows one of the great strengths of your Lordships’ House.
I start by saying that the legislation we are considering came about because a vulnerable adult, HL, was detained in a place he did not want to be and which his carers knew was not right for him. It turned out that he had fewer safeguards than someone who had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act, or who had been detained under the criminal justice system. As we dive into the detail of what is inevitably quite a technical Bill, I urge us all to keep that person, and the hundreds of thousands of people like him, in mind. As we look at a piece of legislation that is essentially more than a decade old we need to think about updating this legislation in light of changes in society. We know that by 2030 there will be 2 million people over the age of 65 who are ageing without children: they will not have close family members to look after their interests. I rather think that our acid test ought to be whether we think that what is being proposed will look after those people.
It has been apparent since 2007—we should bear it in mind that the legislation we are talking about was not part of the Mental Capacity Act but part of the mental health legislation—that the safeguards have been poorly understood and practised. That is because the two pieces of legislation do not work well together or, indeed, at all. The mental health legislation rests on the judgment and expertise of individuals, saying ultimately what they believe to be right for the safety of other people. The Mental Capacity Act is instead based around the principles of autonomy, empowerment and the importance of supporting decision-making. Mental health legislation is very strictly overseen by statutory oversight bodies. The Mental Capacity Act never has been and therefore it is not surprising that when it has been implemented, it has been implemented very patchily and has been reliant largely upon the dedication of interested professionals.
Noble Lords will have had a number of briefings which talk about the welcome extension of these safeguards to settings such as care settings. I do not have a problem with that; in fact, I welcome it. I think many care facilities, particularly those run by charities, which have long and dedicated experience in looking after people with learning disabilities, will implement this extremely well, but they will do so without sufficient oversight or a sufficient guarantee that if they do not do their job properly the people concerned and their carers will have the relevant access to information and right of appeal. If the Government had intended to sort out this fundamental issue that has been hanging around for 20 years, they would have waited until the current review of the mental health legislation, which is being carried out by Sir Simon Wesley and which is inevitably looking at DoLS, had been concluded, but they have not.
Unlike the Law Commission, which took great care to consult on its proposals, the Government have come forward with this piece of legislation on which there has been very little consultation. It is quite clear that the Government have gone through the Law Commission legislation and selectively picked pieces out of it, when in fact the Law Commission was trying to bring together a whole package of measures which, taken as a whole, would have been a robust defence of the liberty of individuals. So my first question to the Minister is: why this legislation and why now? Why not wait until the mental health legislation is reviewed? Why not have a consultation on which people with interests, such as the parents or the families of people who have been detained, could talk about what has gone wrong and what has not worked in the current system? I say to the Minister that if the hurry is about saving money, that is something your Lordships’ House will have to bear in mind as we scrutinise the Bill.
The Select Committee which reviewed the implementation of the Act, on which I sat, was concerned about very patchy introduction. We were right. We now have the figures, which show that in some parts of the country the waiting time for having one of these assessments done is longer than the time for which somebody is supposed to be detained. There is no doubt that this has to be changed. But the changes which the Government are choosing to bring in do not strike me as being sufficiently robust. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, began to outline some of the main areas of concern.
There is also concern about the limiting of legal aid. I hope that other noble Lords, in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, will perhaps look at the limitation of legal aid. We are all in favour of having a system in which fewer people need to go to court fewer times, but when they do have to go to court they need to be able to be properly represented. Very few of them are in a position to represent themselves against local authorities or other authorities which have access to their own legal services. I would like us to look at that.
Secondly, the new definition of “proportionate” does not adequately reflect the best-interest tests that were in the original legislation. That is a severe problem. I understand, and noble Lords will appreciate, the desire to cut down on repetitious assessments and so on, but there is a danger that we might end up with decisions being made about a person’s capacity to make one decision which rest on information that was gathered for a wholly different purpose. That would not be right. I also think we have missed a trick in relation to the recognition that there are a number of people whose capacity to make decisions fluctuates. The Law Commission recommendation on that subject has not been picked up in the Bill.
Finally, I do not doubt for a moment that the Government have good intentions but there are several areas in which the detail of the Bill is deficient. We should also bear in mind the strong possibility that people who found themselves in the position that HL did all those years ago may not have the protection of the European Court of Human Rights in the future. Therefore, it is incumbent upon people in this Parliament to make sure that the human rights of those people enjoy greater safeguards than they have ever done in domestic legislation before. For those reasons, I conclude that the Bill before us is extremely flawed and deficient. I suggest that your Lordships bring their considerable experience and expertise to bear to change it radically before it goes to another place.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I must declare my interest, having chaired the National Mental Capacity Forum for almost three years, and having drawn attention, in March 2015, to the urgency of deprivation of liberty safeguards reform.
The Bill has had a long gestation period. Regarding the Bournewood gap—the history of which was outlined by the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker—we tried to ensure compliance with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to those with impaired capacity who are unable to consent to their living and care arrangements. We should have been more vocal about our reservations when that legislation went through in 2008, because it focused on deprivation of liberty and seemed to ignore P’s security and empowerment.
The Cheshire West judgment of 2014 resulted in huge increases year on year in the number of people with impaired capacity identified as being deprived of their liberty in one way or another. Therefore, without the deprivation of liberty safeguards, their arrangements constitute an illegal deprivation. As the Minister said, last year more than 108,000 people were referred for DoLS assessments. Many of them are still waiting and more have joined that list. They are all illegally detained and the time delay for DoLS assessment has lengthened year on year. The bureaucracy of the current system is crippling, with six separate assessments needed, which can leave the person, P, feeling confused and unable to understand what is happening or why they are being asked personal questions by a stranger. The burden on adult social care is overwhelming. It would need around £2 billion injected just to clear the backlog, but that would still not solve the problem. The administrative processes themselves need urgent reform, and the vulnerable need better protection and better access to justice.
A little history is relevant here. The House of Lords post-legislative scrutiny Select Committee report of March 2014, which stated that the DoLS provisions are not fit for purpose, led to the Law Commission review that Tim Spencer-Lane has been leading. This is the widest consultation that the Law Commission has ever undertaken, travelling the length and breadth of the country to take evidence from as many as wanted to offer it, and I was privileged to be able to sit in on some of those sessions. The Law Commission’s consultation and draft Bill have fed directly into the Bill before us, as Tim Spencer-Lane has been working closely with officials. There has been continuity through the system, which I think is not widely known to people.
Chairing the National Mental Capacity Forum, I have asked many in health and social care how many people have had improved care as a result of DoLS. The estimates are usually around 4% and have ranged from around 3% to 8%, so for all this bureaucracy and expense, fewer than one in 20 has clear better outcomes from the current process. A placebo response for an intervention can be expected in about 20% of people. We would not allow a medical or surgical intervention that fared worse than placebo in improving outcomes, so why put people through these burdensome assessments when we have no evidence of benefit?
Around 2 million people with impaired capacity stand to benefit from the Bill. Importantly, when DoLS has improved care, it seems that this has been through a revised care plan. The best interest assessors who are bringing about improvements will need greater powers as independent mental capacity professionals to target prospectively those thought to be at risk and not depend on referrals from providers once a person is in care. Can the Minister explain how these professionals’ greater powers to protect those at risk will work and how this new system will relate to safeguarding and the processes around it?
This focus in the Bill is on the care plan, and it returns to the core principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Whether in hospital or a care home, those overseeing care are directly responsible for the care plan and for ensuring that, compliant with the empowering ethos of the Mental Capacity Act, the arrangements are the least restrictive option. The restrictions must be necessary and proportionate to ensuring that any deprivation of liberty is justifiable for P’s security, while allowing them as much independent and enjoyable living as possible. In developing a care plan, P’s wishes and feelings must be taken into account. P must be supported to take as many of the decisions over care as P is able to, and they must be involved. This builds on the important amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, introduced into the Mental Capacity Act 2005, establishing the place for an advance statement of wishes. That becomes particularly important for people with fluctuating capacity. Can the Minister provide assurance that this will be stressed in the code of practice whenever a best interest decision is taken, whether by health and social care staff or by a donee of lasting power of attorney for P?
The focus is on liberty protection irrespective of how care is funded, and that is welcome. Liberty protection safeguards are rightly so named and their portability makes sense because the care plan detailing how liberty is protected refers to P. Of course, the care plan must also be dynamic and revised appropriately. Will the Care Quality Commission be responsible for inspecting whether the liberty protection safeguards are dynamic and portable, with a review triggered if circumstances change, particularly for those with learning difficulties and other stable conditions, if an LPS has been signed off in the longer term for three years? In other words: if things change, everything changes.
Those who know P best—the family and those important to P—must be consulted, not sidelined as has happened sometimes with DoLS. Can the Minister confirm that the code of practice will signpost the involvement of expert assessment of those with speech and language difficulties, who are too often labelled as having impaired capacity because they have appeared unable to communicate?
The changes will allow social work staff to concentrate on the most vulnerable, freeing them up to provide person-focused training, so that on a day-to-day basis staff can support P better in making decisions and understand the importance of doing all that they can to involve P in decisions that need to be taken on his or her behalf.
In 2014-15, the year after Cheshire West, the cost to councils rose by more than £98 million, and it has risen further year on year. That backlog now needs £2 billion just to clear it. Will the Government undertake to review, after two years, that futile bureaucracy and duplication has been cut and tangible benefit to P increased?
The code of practice will be important in ensuring that care plans are properly devised and properly reviewed, both regularly and frequently. It will make care providers’ decisions more proportionate, through the emphasis on protecting liberty rather than risk-averse attitudes by providers. Concerns have been voiced about the care home sector’s ability to assess P, yet we rely on these staff day to day. I hope that there will now be mandatory training of all health and social care staff, not just care home staff, in all aspects of the Mental Capacity Act. Mandatory training is long overdue.
I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the code of practice will be developed quickly to address concerns that have been raised about the Bill. One of the most contentious is how liberty is defined, as has already been alluded to. It is important to differentiate disorders that have impaired a person’s liberty—post head injury; post meningitis; the dementias; learning difficulties; delirium, whatever the cause; the list goes on—from actions taken by those responsible for care that deprive P of liberty. Such actions must be justified as being the least restrictive options and designed to allow P’s liberty to be maximised and protected. Given the difficulties with a universally applicable definition, I hope that clarification can be included in the code of practice; that may be safer than trying to come up with something in the Bill.
The term “of unsound mind”, although current legal language—I recognise that it comes from the ECHR—is outdated and stigmatising and may benefit from better wording.
There is a concern that those aged 16 and upwards should be brought into the remit of liberty protection safeguards for consistency, even if they are in education, because transition can be a difficult time for those people and their families.
I hope that concerns about the Bill can be resolved rapidly, because this Bill is urgently needed. I remind the House of the five core principles of the Mental Capacity Act: capacity should be assumed until it can be shown why it is not present; all support must be given for decisions by P; people can make unwise decisions; when capacity is lacking, any decision must be in P’s best interests; and any such decision must be the least restrictive option.
This Bill is an add-on to the Mental Capacity Act; it does not replace it.
Baroness Barran (Con) (Maiden Speech)
It is a huge honour and privilege to address your Lordships’ House today. I would like to start by thanking your Lordships for the very warm welcome that I have received from everyone on all sides of the House. I am grateful to Black Rod and her team for their care and attention to detail, and particularly to the doorkeepers who have manoeuvred me to the right side of the Chamber with a tactful “Where are you planning to sit, my Lady?”, or gently explained that “Morning” and “Afternoon” take on a whole new meaning in your Lordships’ House.
My supporters, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, were superb at putting me at my ease during my introduction, and my noble friend Lord Sherbourne has been masterly in answering my questions with the utmost patience and encouragement. And encouragement is the word that best sums up the past two weeks. All your Lordships have been consistently, and at times almost fiercely, encouraging, and I feel extraordinarily lucky to be here.
Prior to joining this House, I worked for over 20 years in the City, founding one of the first European hedge funds, before going on to advise philanthropists and foundations on their charitable giving, as well as joining the boards of Comic Relief, the Henry Smith Charity and, most recently, the Royal Foundation.
Fifteen years ago, my life changed course when I asked several small charities what they thought was the biggest human problem that was the hardest to raise money for. They all gave me the same answer: domestic violence and abuse. As a result, the charity SafeLives was born on my kitchen table in 2004, with a focus on keeping victims and children safe in their homes wherever possible and holding perpetrators of abuse to account while still helping them to change. As chief executive, I worked with voluntary and statutory agencies across the fields of criminal justice, substance use, mental health, social care, children’s charities and the family courts. I was guided by many victims and survivors of domestic abuse, and today I pay tribute to their extraordinary courage.
Throughout, I have been supported by some exceptional mentors and have had the chance to try to tackle some truly important problems. I think I am safe in expecting that both those things will continue in this House.
Very high up on the list of important problems that this Bill seeks to address is that of when and how to deprive someone who lacks mental capacity of their liberty while upholding their rights. In preparing this speech, I spoke to several organisations working in this field: L’Arche UK, Shared Lives Plus and Gentoo. As a non-lawyer, I focused on the practical aspects of how the Bill will work and asked them all, “What works least well with the current Act in relation to deprivation of liberty safeguards, or DoLS?” One person smiled and said, “Try and imagine doing this. We put an automatic reminder on our calendars every month to write to the local authority to authorise the DoLS. We rarely, if ever, hear back. If we don’t do it, we’re penalised by the CQC in our inspection”. They all highlighted practical problems with apparently pointless bureaucracy, a lack of consideration of the feelings of friends, families and carers, a disconnect between the views of social care and health professionals, and a lack of capacity to provide independent mental capacity advocates. They spoke of their frustration at an opportunity missed to protect vulnerable people, with an apparently uniform and blunt approach.
I believe that the Bill goes some significant way to addressing those concerns. There is a clear intention to simplify the bureaucracy involved and to listen to the views of families, friends and those who know and care for the individual, while providing more skilled resource to resolve the most complex cases. Welcome, too, are other practical aspects—the portability of the authorisations between settings and the extension of their duration from one to three years.
However, the key to success with this Bill when it becomes law will lie in the quality of its implementation. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is both helpful and necessary to give the responsible bodies and care providers absolute clarity, through the code of practice, about the Government’s expectations of them, particularly regarding those sections that aim to give agency and protection to those impacted by this legislation? I refer, in particular, to the training, qualifications and availability of IMCAs and approved mental capacity professionals as well as to the need to give timely responses when renewing authorisations and in the case of an appeal. This would give assurance to the family and carers of those lacking capacity that their rights and wishes will be upheld as well as their needs met.
The novelist and Nobel Prize winner Pearl Buck said:
“The test of a civilisation is in the way that it cares for its helpless members”.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this Bill and how it is implemented locally go to the very heart of that test.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, it has been a real privilege to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, give her maiden speech. I enjoyed listening to her, and I think that we will all benefit enormously from her experience and her commitment to vulnerable people. I share that passion, so I hope we can do a lot of work together. She brings such a lot of important experience to this House. She has worked for many years to make a difference to the lives of a huge number of vulnerable people. I share her passion to eliminate domestic abuse and other forms of abuse and I hope that we can do some work together in future. I have worked in the field, particularly among abused older people, and the noble Baroness has done a lot of work among people of all ages. I have heard that she has four children and I have four children. I wonder whether there is a connection that brings our interests together because we know what bringing up a large family means. I wish her every success. I am sure that she will enjoy being in the House. I—like, I think, everybody listening to her today—look forward to working closely with her and gaining from her very valuable experience and commitment to people who are vulnerable and who need help and advice from her and from all of us.
I welcome the Bill, which has many positive features. It includes a lot more person-centred care planning, it attempts to reduce bureaucracy and it provides clarity around responsibilities for those closest to the delivery of day-to-day care. I acknowledge that there are omissions. Noble Lords who have spoken have pointed them out. We will concentrate on them as the Bill goes through our House.
Recognition that the system in its current form is overly technical and legalistic is long overdue. Indeed, in her letter to the All-Party Group on Dementia, which I co-chair, the Minister, Caroline Dinenage MP, remarked that the current system places too heavy a burden on people and their families and too often fails to achieve the positive outcomes that underpin the purpose of the process. I agree, and our committee will do all we can to help her make the Bill work and improve its outcomes, and I look forward to working with the Minister in your Lordships’ House to make that happen.
In 2013 our Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 found that its provisions were inadequate and left those deprived of liberty without adequate protection. The committee felt that the provisions were poorly drafted, overly complex and bore no relation to the language and ethos of the Mental Capacity Act. The safeguards are not well understood and are poorly implemented. With this legislation, the appropriate delicate balance has to be struck between the protection and empowerment of individuals, who may lack the mental capacity to make their own decisions about their care and treatment, and the duty of care to staff, other patients and the public at large that the state has to protect them from the behaviour of people who may not be fully responsible for their actions.
I am not fully certain that in the Bill, despite the Government’s best efforts, we have got the balance entirely correct. Noble Lords will be aware that I am committed to promoting human rights for vulnerable people, so I welcome anything that seeks to drive up standards and accountability in the social care sector. I have been contacted by a social worker and co-ordinator from south Wales who is concerned that the new scheme, with its significant increase in legally prescribed duties for social workers, has not been fully discussed with leaders in the care provider sector. Indeed, he feels that many care home staff are scarcely aware of it and will be very concerned about these changes as they may not be well informed enough to make the crucial decisions that will be needed. He feels that the lessons of the patchy implementation of the Mental Capacity Act to date have not been properly studied and that it may be that all we do is simply transfer the burden, backlog and chaos from statutory bodies to unprepared care homes. Could the Minister reassure us that, in his view, there has been appropriate consultation within the care sector?
I also share the reservations expressed by the charity VoiceAbility about the lack of weight given by the Act to the wishes, feelings and views of the cared-for person or their family and carers, with concerns about how compliant with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights the new scheme is. Under the Bill, the right to refuse a deprivation of liberty safeguard by a lasting power of attorney or a deputy has been removed, so we have concerns that the rights and safeguards for the cared-for person might be diminished by the Bill.
It is good news that £200 million a year will be saved by local authorities. However, we have to suppose that the increased role of NHS and independent sector providers will lead to increased costs elsewhere, while the new responsibilities being imposed on care homes, hospitals and CCGs will need some thought, resources and training. For example, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists argues that assessors often do not recognise or know how to support communication difficulties. One can envisage that this could be a real problem if English is not the first language of the patient or their family.
As a vice-chair of the Local Government Association, I share its assessment that the transition to the new framework and its future framework implementation should receive additional resources to reflect the additional costs that may be associated with the change. I also share the view of ADASS that a period of transition is likely to be needed to enable hearth and care staff to adapt to the new system. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on these points, that an appropriate cost-benefit analysis of the changes will be in place and that the training and integration aspects have also been fully thought through and costed.
I have one or two other reservations. I do not think it unreasonable to ask the Minister to explain why, when the Bill so closely follows the recent proposals from the Law Commission, it differs from them in several significant respects. For example, the regime applies only to those who are 18 and over although the Law Commission argued that LPSs should apply to 16 and 17 year-olds because it feels that the current regime is inadequate and is failing to protect the rights of some young people. The Government said they accepted this recommendation in principle but would,
“need to consider in more detail this recommendation’s practical application and implementation”.
Turning to older people, I welcome the inclusion of a new special procedure for care homes within the scheme, which gives them greater responsibility for arranging the assessments of people who may lack capacity from dementia. As much as I welcome this change, I share Age UK’s concern that provision must be made to ensure that care home managers have the training and resources to be able to clear the significant backlog of assessments under the Bill’s provisions.
In my view, the Bill should set out a specific route for authorisations within a person’s home. Can the Minister assist the House by explaining how he sees at-home assessments working? I note that the new system retains the distinction that, where an individual who could be detained under the Mental Health Act objects to being detained, they cannot be made subject to an authorisation under new Schedule AA1. I also share the concern of the Alzheimer’s Society that the current interface between the Mental Health Act and the DoLS process for authorising deprivation of liberty within the Mental Capacity Act is a key issue for people living with dementia.
Lastly, the Bill makes provision for the introduction of approved mental capacity professionals, who must carry out the pre-authorisation review and determine whether the authorisation conditions are met. This role replaces the best interest assessors’ role under the Mental Capacity Act. However, the Bill and the Explanatory Notes do not detail which professionals could act in this new role and how they interact with other clinicians. I know that the General Medical Council sees potential for conflict between its regulatory standards and the proposed legal requirements. It has called for more clarity about doctors’ roles and responsibilities in such a challenging area. Perhaps the Minister could explain a little more about how and when the Government plan to firm up the status and context of this important role.
In closing, we must find a way to define deprivation of liberty more clearly. The JCHR’s view is that this is needed to clarify the application of the Supreme Court’s acid test, which sets out questions that must be considered when determining whether an adult who has been assessed as lacking the capacity to consent is being deprived of their liberty. Without a clear definition, there is a risk that the Bill will be unworkable, particularly in domestic settings. The development of the LPS must also be considered in the wider context of other issues within the health and social care system, such as the upcoming Green Paper on care and support reform and the independent review of the Mental Health Act.
The Government need to act speedily to ensure that the rights of this group of very vulnerable people are clarified and that their needs are met quickly. They are not in a position to wait any longer.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to be speaking in this debate, conscious that I am a novice in this area of mental health legislation but very grateful that there are so many other noble Lords across the House with deep expertise in it. To start on a positive note, I welcome the intent behind the Bill and believe that it goes some way towards ensuring that the current high levels of bureaucracy, workforce hours and cost that have been a part of mental capacity assessments since the Supreme Court ruling in the Cheshire West case are offset by a more balanced ability to plan and deliver timely care while still safeguarding patients.
However, I have real concerns about its timing and its interaction with the Mental Health Act, and because it is silent on some of the key recommendations of the Law Commission report. I hope that at the end of this debate, the Minister will provide some explanation for the variance with the Law Commission proposals and the unexpected timing of the Bill, which seems to have taken many by surprise.
A quick glance at the statistics reveals the scale of the problem. Last year, more than 200,000 DoLS applications were made—a number certain to rise. The average time taken to complete the assessments was 120 days, with a backlog of more than 120,000 cases. The Law Commission has estimated that the annual cost of all this might end up being close to £2 billion, so there is clearly a major problem here that needs fixing.
The proposals in the Bill, essentially allowing NHS staff rather than the Court of Protection to oversee when and where to deprive people of their liberty, on the face of it seem to strike a better balance between care planning and the provision of what has too often been a box-ticking procedural safeguards process. The Bill comes at the same time as the recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights only last week that a new legal definition of deprivation of liberty should be debated and defined, which could,
“produce greater clarity and would extend safeguards only to those who truly need them, whilst respecting the right to personal autonomy of those who are clearly content with their situation, even if they are not capable of verbalising such consent”.
All the briefings I have received from those working in the sector make it clear that the lack of such a new legal definition is a serious omission and risks jeopardising this legislation’s chance of successful implementation. That all adds up to my overall feeling about this Bill: that we risk acting with indecent haste before all the relevant pieces of the jigsaw are in place to allow a coherent and joined-up new system to be put in place—and I know that that new system is much needed. I note that Sir Simon Wessely, chair of the Mental Health Act review, said as much in a recent blog, drawing attention to the fact that at the moment some people lacking the capacity to consent to their admission for care and treatment will fall under the Mental Capacity Act and the proposed new liberty protection safeguards, and some will be detained under the Mental Health Act. But—and it is a big but—the boundaries between the two are not clear. My main concern about the Bill is that, in rushing ahead to fix the clear deficiencies of the DoLS procedures, we are creating further complexity in an area already beset with confusion and complexity. My view, like that of some other noble Lords today, is that it would have been far preferable to have a single, fully integrated Act covering both mental illness and mental capacity.
The interaction with the Mental Health Act is at the very least a messy one. There is a real tension between wanting to tackle problems with the current mental capacity law straightaway—I fully understand that—and the need to properly link it with plans to improve the Mental Health Act. I know that the JCHR has called on the Government to move quickly on reforming the Mental Capacity Act, but this should not prevent close consideration of the two pieces of legislation and how they relate to each other. In response to the Law Commission’s proposals, I noted that the Government stated that they would await the Mental Health Act review’s recommendations on interface issues, including how reformed DoLS would interact with the Act. I find that quite a confusing statement. Could the Minister say whether and how the Government plan to fulfil that undertaking?
I am also concerned, as are others, that the focus of the Bill is on deprivation of liberty alone, rather than the wider amendments to the Mental Capacity Act proposed by the Law Commission. In particular, the important recommendation to put particular weight on a patient’s wishes in any Mental Capacity Act best interests decision-making process is absent, as are any additional provisions about advanced consent. As I have said, I really feel—others have said it far more eloquently than me—that this is a missed opportunity to treat vulnerable people with the dignity and respect that they deserve in what we all agree is a very difficult situation.
I turn to the issue of including 16 and 17 year-olds in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill, as originally proposed by the Law Commission. The main reasons for this are twofold. First, using parental responsibility to authorise Article 5 deprivation denies 16 and 17 year-olds the uniform statutory protections available to people aged 18 and older. Secondly, including 16 and 17 year-olds would create greater certainty and standardised practices for this age group than currently exist. It is all a bit technical but, as I understand it, presently Article 5 deprivation can be authorised by four different mechanisms: parental responsibility, a court order, a police protection order under the Children Act, or the Mental Health Act.
Front-line clinicians I have spoken to are often unsure which option to pursue. This can cause delays of a number of weeks while professionals argue with each other about the most appropriate option. In the meantime, the 16 to 17 year-old is in a legal limbo, often stuck in a paediatric ward or A&E while these debates take place. The situation gets even more confusing if two people with parental responsibility disagree or if the local authority shares parental responsibility—for example, for children on a care order. This is an opportunity to make the situation for 16 to 17 year-olds much better, and we should take it.
The Law Commission’s proposals also included the very interesting idea that we follow the lead of many countries and include in the Mental Capacity Act a framework allowing people to make formal support agreements. This would hugely benefit family members of the person under the liberty protection safeguards and value their input to the process. However, the wording in the Bill is unhelpfully convoluted, and will make it more difficult for staff, patients and their families to understand.
As the Bill stands, there is a heavy burden on care home managers to manage the applications. An individual would be reliant on the motivation, knowledge and skill of the care home manager to identify deprivation of liberty and to take appropriate safeguarding steps. Managers’ level of knowledge and experience will inevitably vary enormously, resulting in an individual’s human rights potentially being neglected if a manager simply does not recognise what constitutes a deprivation of liberty and takes appropriate action. As other noble Lords have said, a major training programme would be needed, as well as significant resources for implementation.
My final point relates to the phrase “unsound mind”, which I understand is still used because of the reference to the European Court of Human Rights. This is dated terminology which is offensive and stigmatising and has no clinical value. Imagine if you learned that this was an outcome of an assessment of your parent, partner or sibling. I stress again the importance of keeping the patient at the centre of our legislation, not the conventions or convenience of lawyers. Will the Government commit to removing the reference to “unsound mind” from the Bill?
In conclusion, I return to my concern about timing and the outcome of the review of the Mental Health Act, given that both Acts relate to the non-consensual care and medical treatment of people. The overlap between the two systems is one of the reasons that the current system is so complicated, and changes to address problems under one system will inevitably have unintended knock-on consequences for the other. What is needed is simplification and streamlining, rather than incremental, piecemeal reform. There is much to do to improve the Bill; I hope that the Government will be open minded and in listening mode.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I am hesitant to speak in this debate, having not been involved in earlier work on the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, having worked in mental health services and as a Mental Health Act commissioner over a number of years, and having overseen the Mental Health Act appeals of Mental Health Act managers, I do have an interest in deprivation of liberty decisions and, in particular, the justification and proportionality of them.
This is clearly an important Bill, and I applaud the Government for bringing it forward. The DoLS scheme was clearly cumbersome, little understood and in many ways deficient. It is, however, far from clear to me that the new system will be as simple for patients and carers to use as the Minister seemed to imply in his opening remarks. As other noble Lords have indicated, a key issue will be the interface between this Bill and the review of the Mental Health Act, which I understand will report in the autumn of this year. Both relate to non-consensual care and treatment and may apply to some of the same people. As the Royal College of Psychiatrists says, it is the overlaps between the two systems which to some degree explain why the current arrangements are so complicated and why staff struggle to use them. Changes to address problems in one system will surely have unintended consequence for the other. Clarity will be needed about when a patient should be subject to one Act rather than the other. It will be vital that no patient should be deprived of their liberty under both Acts at the same time. I understand that this happens at present, and it is important that this situation be brought to an end. Can the Minister give the House some assurance about how the Government propose to achieve that end?
Another rather straightforward point, which was made by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the GMC and with which I strongly agree—other noble Lords have mentioned it—is on the use of the term “unsound mind” in the Bill. The term, as others have said, dates back to the 1950s and is stigmatising and out of place today. The college suggests that this term be replaced by “has any disorder or disability of the mind”, which would certainly be greatly preferable. Will the Minister agree to bring forward an amendment to that effect? Perhaps he will be able to comment on that today.
As other noble Lords have said, it is difficult to understand why the Government have not extended the new scheme to 16 and 17 year-olds, as recommended by the Law Commission. Case law has established that the parents of a child under 16 can give consent to what would otherwise constitute a deprivation of that child’s liberty where the matter falls within the “zone of parental responsibility”, but a parent cannot give consent on behalf of a 16 or 17 year-old. Surely the Bill should apply to the young person themselves rather than assume that the parents will make decisions on their behalf. Again, maybe the Minister can explain this apparent contradiction this afternoon.
On the appeals process, under the DoLS system, appeals must be made to the Court of Protection, which can be complex, slow and expensive. Can the Minister explain why the Bill does not introduce any changes to that system? In particular, is there any reason why the appeals process should not replicate the system under the Mental Health Act, which seems to work pretty well? It is worth noting that the Joint Committee on Human Rights made the point that a tribunal system would be more efficient, accessible and cost effective, and would enhance the rights of the individual concerned to be directly involved in the proceedings. In addition, of course the Mental Health Act provides for a tribunal system, so we have a nice model to follow—and why not? Non-means-tested legal aid should be available in such cases but, again, it would be less costly to the taxpayer if tribunals were established to do that job.
The GMC has raised a concern about the lack of clarity in the Bill regarding precisely who should be consulted before an LPS authorisation is made. This apparently includes,
“anyone engaged in caring for the cared-for person or interested in the cared-for person’s welfare”.
Does this mean that both a GP and a hospital doctor should be consulted? Is that necessary? Surely the doctor who knows the patient best would be sufficient. How many others involved in the care of the patient should be consulted?
A particular issue in this context is the power of a decision-maker to decide who is consulted from the proposed list. Surely some are far more important than others. For example, if there is a holder of a lasting power of attorney with decision-making powers in relation to the care of the patient, surely that LPA must be consulted. Yet it seems that the decision-maker can decide whether that person is consulted. The same should apply to the next of kin, who surely must be consulted—it cannot be a choice.
An obvious gap in the Bill, as others have said, is any provision for a person to be able to consent in advance to specific care or treatment arrangements so that authorisation under the new safeguarding scheme could be avoided; it would also save a whole lot of resources and avoid delays for the individual. Advance decisions, with effective safeguards, would reduce bureaucracy and cost and enable more involvement of patients and their families. The Minister will be aware that advance decisions to prepare for end-of-life care are increasingly used—although as yet, not at all sufficiently. But where these advance decisions are in place, the problems for physicians and next of kin are greatly reduced in relation to decisions about whether life-prolonging treatment should be continued, for example. The need to respect the wishes of the individual is similarly important under this legislation. Can the Minister indicate whether the Government would object to including a system of advance decisions in the Bill, and if so, why?
In conclusion, is there any prospect that later stages of the Bill could be held over until the report on the review of the Mental Health Act becomes available, to try to ensure complementarity between the two? I also very much look forward, with other noble Lords, to hearing the Minister’s response to the points that have been made.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be present during this important debate to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Barran. We all wish her well in her contributions to your Lordships’ House. I refer to my interests in the register and to the fact that I am a carer and a deputy holding LPAs for vulnerable relatives.
I fully understand why my noble friend the Minister has a certain sense of urgency in bringing this legislation forward. As we have heard, there is clearly a problem that is hitting individuals and our health and care institutions, because of the backlog that is accruing. Clearly, there is a sense of urgency to try to resolve this. However, I begin by saying to my noble friend: it has to be resolved correctly this time. I say “this time” having served on the pre-legislative scrutiny committee for the Mental Capacity Bill, having worked on the Bill when it went through the Commons, having served on the post-legislative committee in your Lordships’ House, and having worked on all existing mental health legislation that we are currently reviewing.
There was a recurring theme on all those committees—there are people around the House who were with me on those committees and who know that we seem to have been doing this for ever. We were only too well aware of the Bournewood gap, which my noble friend mentioned when completing his remarks, and we still have not plugged that gap. It is essential that we plug it this time. Recommendation 21 from the post-legislative scrutiny committee of this House considered that we had inadvertently created a new Bournewood gap and that that should be closed. I have to say to my noble friend that I do not think that the Bill as drafted closes that gap. It is a good attempt, but I would like to have seen some pre-legislative scrutiny on this rather small but important Bill.
Let me share this with the House. At the weekend, I received correspondence from the professional carers of HL in the Bournewood case, which I was involved in many years ago. In respect of the Bill before us, they say it is bizarre that the Court of Protection gives authority to deputies to exercise control over P’s accommodation and care provision. As this Bill stands, it prevents them having any real power in the process. Mr E goes on to state that their acid test is this: if HL v Bournewood happened today, would he be any better protected? As a House dealing with the Bill before it goes to another place, we have to make absolutely sure that we get it right this time.
Concerns have been expressed across the House on behalf of interested parties and the charitable third sector, particularly by my friend the noble Lord, Lord Touhig—he and I both serve as vice-presidents of the National Autistic Society. This brings forward another issue. A lot of noble Lords have spoken today about vulnerable people. That is who we are trying to address in this legislation to get it right. However, vulnerable people are on a spectrum and they all have different needs—they are all vulnerable but how one approaches them and resolves decision-making challenges for them is very different. For example, dealing with somebody very old who has been very disabled by a stroke and is in permanent residential or nursing care is very different from dealing with a 20-something year-old who needs residential care and is on the autistic spectrum. In the work that I have been involved in with younger autistic adults, it is often said that if you get the right person asking the right questions in the right way, those adults understand what the problem is and what the choices are. They have capacity but they have difficulty in knowing how to come to a decision for themselves about the right way forward. There is a world of difference between a professional going through that process and exercise with somebody and dealing with somebody who, as I just explained, might be very elderly or has had a stroke.
Then there is the question of communication. Across this whole spectrum of people are people with communication disorders. How they communicate, whether they need speech and language therapists to assist them or whether they are non-verbal but can still communicate, needs to be taken into account. For that process to take place and for that assessment and decision to be made, it is absolutely essential that time is given.
I know that many Members of both Houses—I am not sure how many—have taken part in training courses run by the Alzheimer’s Society in how to communicate with somebody who has advanced Alzheimer’s. To be frank, it is not all that different from how you communicate with people who are learning disabled or on the autism spectrum. When asking a question or putting information to them, you wait for them to process that information and give them plenty of time before they then express, in whatever way is appropriate for them, an answer to that question or indicate what their preference would be. That is not a cheap option. That type of assessment is not cheap or fast.
Although I understand the urgency to bring down this backlog and treat people individually, we must understand how some of these processes require very skilled people to carry out the assessment. They should be well-trained, experienced people, ideally who know the individual, although that is not always possible. These are the challenges in getting this legislation right.
I totally concur with many issues raised today. Best interests are very important and I am concerned that that phrase is not in this legislation. As someone who holds a lasting power of attorney for health and social care, I am only too well aware that my duties in law as a private individual—not as a professional—are that I should always assess and put that person’s best interests first. If I am doing the job properly, I should notate how I went about the process. Yet we are saying in this legislation that somebody who has that legal duty in respect of another individual does not have to take that into account. They will not be consulted and will not be at the heart of the decision-making as far as P is concerned when assessments and decisions are made. There seems to be a contradiction between two different legal requirements on people in the same Act. I hope my noble friend will address that because I am now very nervous, as somebody who holds this responsibility of lasting power of attorney for another that, somehow, putting their best interests first, which I am legally required to do, will not be taken into account when another area of law is challenging the validity of that responsibility. Again, we must get this right. We cannot leave this as a gap in the process, because it is very important.
Then there are the assessments themselves and the question of training and the quality of that training for the people who carry them out. We should make sure that, even if we save money publicly on reducing the backlog and the numbers, there will be an investment in training for people who currently do not have that training. Certainly, the post-legislative scrutiny committee understood only too well from the evidence that we took a few years ago that there is a paucity of people who really understand the legislation in terms of what they are meant to do as professionals. It was very patchy then and, from what we have seen, it does not appear to be any better now. Nothing has improved all that much.
I want to raise briefly the people who have registered advance decision-making rights to refuse treatment. I am grateful to Cardiff University for its briefing, which sets out the position and explains how this issue is affected by the legislation before us. It states that the Mental Capacity Act enabled people to make ADRTs to refuse in advance specified medical treatments at a time when they may lack capacity to give or refuse consent. The Act created for the first time a mechanism for a person to specify who they would like to make those decisions, which brings us back to lasting powers of attorney. Both provisions were meant to enhance respect for personal autonomy, so it is important that, whatever is in the Bill when it leaves this House, nothing in it should reduce in any way that respect for personal autonomy. Under DoLS there was a “no refusals” test, which meant that an authorisation could not be issued if the purpose of the deprivation of liberty was to provide treatment where the person had made an ADRT refusing it, or which an appropriately empowered attorney refused to consent to on their behalf. This meant that DoLS could not be used to trump the past expression of a person’s wishes and feelings about what would happen when they had had capacity. I hope my noble friend will look again and bring some clarity to this issue. The legislation we are discussing today really is not clear on how those advance decisions will be treated, not only in terms of their relevance but whether they will be recognised as they should be now.
I finish with a quote from evidence we took in our committee on a case that was prevalent at the time and remains a test case—that of Steven Neary. His father sent a letter to the committee. It is worth bearing in mind that we are not dealing just with numbers, money and legislation, but with real people living real lives and for whom there are lasting consequences. Steven’s father, Mark Neary, really fought the fight on his son’s behalf. After he had succeeded, he wrote to say, “Two years on, I still have to deal on a daily basis with the trauma Steven experienced as a result of the DoLS legislation being turned upside down by Hillingdon. It is painful to watch. Two years on, I still have to deal with my own feelings of anger, sadness and guilt that I was not able to protect Steven from the nightmare. Living with his and my feelings—I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy. That is why there is still so much to do in making sure that the Mental Capacity Act and DoLS truly protect the vulnerable people that the Act was designed for”. We must get it right this time.
NATO Brussels Summit 2018
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the NATO summit in Brussels last week. Transatlantic unity has been fundamental to the protection and projection of our interests and values for generations. At a time when we are facing dangerous and unpredictable threats from state and non-state actors—from the use of chemical weapons to terrorism to cyberattack—NATO remains as vital to our collective security as it has ever been. The focus of this summit was on strengthening the alliance, including through greater burden-sharing, stepping up our collective efforts to meet the threats of today, and enhancing NATO’s capability to meet the threats of tomorrow. The UK played an important role in securing progress on all three.
The UK is proud to have the second-largest defence budget in NATO after the US, and the largest in Europe. We are increasing our defence spending in every year of this Parliament. We are meeting our NATO commitments to spend 2% of our GDP on defence and 20% of that on equipment, investing heavily in modernising our Armed Forces with plans to spend £180 billion on equipment and support over the next 10 years.
This morning, I announced the publication of the UK’s combat air strategy, confirming our commitment to maintaining our world-class air power capabilities. This is backed by our future combat air system technology initiative, which will deliver over £2 billion of investment over 10 years and lay the groundwork for the Typhoon successor programme. We are deploying the full spectrum of our capabilities in support of the NATO alliance. In the week that we marked the centenary of our extraordinary Royal Air Force, I was proud to be able to announce at this summit the additional deployment of UK fighter jets to NATO air policing missions. We are also leading Standing NATO Maritime Groups, contributing our nuclear deterrent to the security of Europe as a whole, and continuing our commitment to NATO missions, including in Estonia where we lead NATO’s enhanced forward presence.
But as the UK plays this leading role in the security of the whole continent, so it is right that we work to even burden-sharing across the alliance and that other allies step up and contribute more to our shared defence. This summit included an additional session in response to the challenge posed by President Trump on exactly this point. Non-US allies are already doing more, with their spending increasing by $41 billion in 2017 alone and by a total of $87 billion since the Wales defence investment pledge was adopted in 2014. These are the largest increases in non-US spending in a quarter of a century and, over the decade to 2024, we expect this spending to have increased by hundreds of billions. NATO allies must go further in increasing their defence spending and capability. During the summit, leaders agreed that all were committed to fairer burden-sharing; they had a shared sense of urgency to do more. That is in all of our interests.
Turning to specific threats, there was an extensive discussion on Russia. The appalling use of a nerve agent in Salisbury is another example of Russia’s growing disregard for the global norms and laws that keep us all safe. It is a further example of a well-established pattern of behaviour to undermine western democracies and damage our interests around the world. In recent years, we have seen Russia stepping up its arms sales to Iran, shielding the Syrian regime’s barbaric use of chemical weapons, launching cyberattacks that have caused economic damage and spreading malicious and fake news stories on an industrial scale. Our long-term objective remains a constructive relationship with Russia, so it is right that we keep engaging both as individual nations and as a NATO alliance. I welcome the meeting between President Trump and President Putin in Helsinki today. But as I agreed with President Trump in our discussions last week, we must engage from a position of unity and strength. This means being clear and unwavering about where Russia needs to change its behaviour. For as long as Russia persists in its efforts to undermine our interests and values, we must continue to deter and counter it. That is exactly what we will do.
In this context, in a separate discussion during the summit, the alliance also reaffirmed our unwavering support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia and Ukraine. We continue to support both Georgia and Ukraine in their aspirations for full membership of the alliance. The alliance also extended an invitation to the Government of Skopje to start accession talks following their historic agreement with Athens. This builds further on the progress made at the Western Balkans Summit in London earlier in the week, which took important steps to strengthen the stability and prosperity of the region.
For part of the summit we were joined by President Ghani, who provided an update on the situation in Afghanistan. There are encouraging signs of progress towards a peace process. Allies were united in our strong support for his efforts, but the security situation remains challenging, compounded further by Daesh fighters who have fled Iraq and Syria. So, as my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary announced to the House last Wednesday, at this summit we increased our support for NATO’s mission Resolute Support with a further uplift of 440 UK troops for the UK-led Kabul Security Force. This will take our total troop commitment in Afghanistan to around 1,100. Together with all allies, we also committed additional financial support for sustaining the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces until 2024. As I discussed with President Trump at the summit, our commitment to Afghanistan began as NATO’s only use of Article 5, acting in support of the US following the attack on New York’s World Trade Centre. Our uplift will also enable the release of US personnel to conduct increased mentoring and counterterrorism activity across Afghanistan.
The summit also agreed to extend defence capacity building to Tunisia, Jordan and Iraq. The UK’s contribution will play a vital role—in particular, increasing our support to the Iraqi Government in strengthening their security institutions and promoting stability for the longer term.
Facing today’s challenges is not enough. In the UK, our modernising defence programme will ensure that our capabilities remain as potent in meeting the threats of tomorrow as they are in keeping us safe today. NATO too must adapt to meet these challenges. This means delivering the reforms agreed at the Wales and Warsaw summits, politically, militarily and institutionally. At this summit, allies agreed a stronger NATO command structure, including two new headquarters, and the UK is committing more than 100 new posts to that structure, taking our commitment to over 1,000 UK service personnel.
We also agreed to improve the readiness of our forces through NATO’s readiness initiative known as the “Four 30s”. This is a commitment by 2020 to have 30 mechanised battalions, 30 air squadrons and 30 combat vessels, all ready to use within 30 days or less. The UK will play its full part in delivering this. We also agreed further work to help counter cyber and hybrid threats by enhancing the capabilities of the alliance to respond quickly and effectively to these new challenges. This includes a new cyber operations centre and new support teams that will be able to assist allies who want help either in preparing to respond or responding to an attack. Again, the UK is at the forefront of these efforts. For example, we were the first country to offer our national offensive cyber capabilities to the alliance, and we have also committed to host the NATO cyber defence pledge conference in 2019.
As I have said many times, the UK is unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security. That is why I have proposed a bold new security partnership between the UK and the EU for after we leave. But in a world where the threats to Europe’s security often emanate from beyond its borders, and where we face an array of profound challenges to the entire rules-based international order, the strength and endurance of our transatlantic alliance is vital in protecting our shared security and projecting our shared values. That is why a strong, modern and united NATO remains the cornerstone of our security and why our commitment to it is iron-clad. As we have done across generations, we will stand shoulder to shoulder with our closest allies to defend the rules-based order and the liberal values of democracy, human rights and justice that define our way of life. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, but while I appreciate the pressures that the Government are under it has been the norm that we would get early sight of a Statement before it is made. Today, we received it shortly before the Prime Minister started speaking in the other place at 3.24 pm.
If reports of the summit are accurate, this appears to be one of the most divisive summits NATO has had, despite common agreement on a number of key issues. We welcome indications that the NATO alliance is responding positively to changing warfare and future threats. The declaration from the summit concluded that countries can invoke Article 5 on collective defence response for hybrid warfare. That starts to open up what an Article 5 response might look like, ensuring that a wider range of potential options are available. It might not be military. It can also be, for example, diplomatic—perhaps not too dissimilar from what happened following the Skripal attack. This is a crucial issue, which could redefine a NATO Article 5 response. Were there any further discussions about what it might look like in the future, including the process of determining how it would be co-ordinated?
I note that the summit also highlighted the importance of working in tandem with other international organisations, including the UN and the EU. Was there any discussion about the role of both these organisations in co-ordinating an Article 5 response? Was there any discussion about promoting collaboration between NATO and the UN in conflict prevention and peacekeeping in terms of the wider security issues in the NATO alliance area?
As the noble Baroness and others in your Lordships’ House will know, the founding principle of NATO was about guaranteeing security across Europe and the North Atlantic. Bearing this in mind, and events in Salisbury, have the Government held any bilateral discussions with the US, including with President Trump at the summit before he left to meet President Putin, about our response to Russian aggression? The NATO summit declaration rightly condemned the illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea. This was in some doubt beforehand, because of comments made by President Trump. What steps are our Government taking to support the Government of Ukraine?
On NATO spending, I have been reading the statement from the summit, while at the same time looking at comments and tweets from President Trump. My understanding is that nothing has really changed in terms of the 2014 aim for all countries to reach 2% of GDP on defence spending by 2024. This has been quite a slow process, but it is ongoing and there is continual progress. On the UK’s commitment, does the noble Baroness consider it appropriate that the UK now includes spending on military MoD pensions as contributing towards the UK target, when it had not been included under previous Governments? What consideration has been given to the assessment by the International Institute for Strategic Studies that we have fallen short of meeting that 2%, even with pensions included? As well as the commitment for NATO to spend 2% on defence, what is the current thinking on the Government’s own modernising defence programme? Will that require additional funding over and above that 2%?
The noble Baroness and others may have seen the comments from President Trump on this issue. I do not know whether she has spoken to the Prime Minister yet as to whether the Prime Minister agrees with the description of the meeting as, “two days of mayhem”. It could be that after President Trump’s visit to the UK she has become inured to his extraordinary behaviour. Press reports, and the President’s Twitter account, indicate that the US President did not moderate his claims or his actions as he flew to Brussels, as we saw when he arrived in the UK.
On the issue of defence spending across NATO countries, the Prime Minister’s Statement says:
“This summit included an additional session in response to the challenge posed by President Trump”.
Does the noble Baroness know when that additional session was held? Can she comment on the accuracy of reports that the scheduled meeting on Thursday morning with Georgia and Afghanistan, two crucial issues that she mentioned in the Statement, had to be halted and the two countries asked to leave after President Trump arrived late and insisted on discussing NATO spending there and then, even though it was not on the agenda and had not been scheduled?
President Trump announced that the EU leaders had caved in to his demands, had agreed to meet the 2% target by next January—2019—and that they would then go further and had “upped their commitment”. That is not in the Statement, so is that the understanding of the UK Government, or is it, perhaps, fake news? President Trump also issued what some regarded as an ultimatum, suggesting that without these commitments the US could leave the NATO alliance. The expression was that America would “do its own thing”. That is not borne out by the decision of the US Senate last week, which, showing very strong bipartisanship, voted 97 to 2 in support of NATO.
It seems there is very little that is new from this summit, although the importance of the NATO alliance countries reaffirming shared commitments and values must be recognised, alongside our ongoing shared commitment to meet the challenges of the future. There is much to be gained by our working together, but it is clear that much more needs to be done to maintain and achieve commitments that have already been made.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, this NATO summit, despite an extraordinarily long communiqué, was essentially about only one thing: the future relationship of the US, and particularly its President, with Europe. President Trump says many worrying and extraordinary things, but when he describes the EU as one of America’s foes we are clearly in extremely challenging times. His statement is all the more remarkable because NATO faces more external threats—from Russia on the one hand and international terrorism on the other—than for several decades. At least President Trump’s performance in Brussels and subsequently in the UK has succeeded in one respect in which the Government have conspicuously failed—he has brought the country together, albeit in opposition to him and many of the policies he is now promoting. In these circumstances, it is vital that the UK speaks with a clear and firm voice and that it works ever more closely with its European allies.
There is only one reference in the Prime Minister’s Statement to the discussions that she held with President Trump on Russia. It says:
“But as I agreed with President Trump in our discussions last week, we must engage from a position of unity and strength”.
I think many are concerned that there is now no such unity with the US on relations with Russia. As the Prime Minister talks of unity, did she seek and gain an absolute assurance from President Trump that he would indeed continue to support the NATO policy of opposition to the Russian annexation of Crimea? Did she gain any assurances about continuing US presence in the vulnerable Baltic states? More generally, did she gain any assurance that the President continues to see NATO as the best mechanism for addressing the whole range of our shared security challenges?
On every issue on which President Trump has challenged mainstream thinking—climate change, Iran and trade, for example—the UK has found itself on the same side as our EU partners and not with him. We may find after today’s meeting in Helsinki that the same applies to some security issues. So was the Prime Minister able to have discussions with any of our European partners while she was in Brussels about the form of foreign policy and defence relationship which might exist were we to leave the EU? The White Paper on our future relationship with the EU says that we must ensure that,
“there is no drop off in mutual efforts to support European security”,
and that the proposed mechanism for achieving this is to include,
“provisions for discussion between EU27 leaders and the UK Prime Minister”.
Did the Prime Minister discuss what such provisions might look like with the principal military powers in the EU, particularly France? What response did she get?
The Prime Minister’s Statement ranges over a number of areas—for example, Afghanistan and cybersecurity—where it is clear that we can be secure only if we work in the closest co-operation with our allies. A combination of President Trump and Brexit is putting a strain on these relationships. It is vital that the Government, with their new Foreign Secretary, bring greater clarity to our strategic foreign policy priorities. It has been lacking for far too long.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments and I apologise for the late sight of the Statement. Obviously I will relay that message.
The noble Baroness asked about Salisbury. Yes, the Prime Minister certainly raised the severity of the issues around Salisbury and Amesbury during her conversations with President Trump, both at the NATO summit and during his visit. The noble Baroness also asked about triggering Article 50. She is right that NATO has decided that a cyberattack can trigger Article 50—sorry, Article 5. Oh God, that says it all, does it not? It is still on my mind. We regard a cyberattack as something that can cause considerable damage. I believe that discussions will continue, but perhaps I might write to the noble Baroness if I am able to provide any more information. I am afraid I do not have that at this point.
Cyberdefence is obviously part of the alliance’s core task of collective defence and allies agreed that cyber is a domain of operations in which NATO must operate as effectively as it does in the air, on land and at sea. That is why they made the pledge to enhance our cyberdefence as a matter of priority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, both questioned whether the summit was constructive. It was; all allies, including President Trump, reiterated their belief in the importance of NATO. Indeed, he talked about that in his press conference afterwards. As the noble Baroness is aware, I was not at the summit, so I am afraid that I cannot go into detail about when discussions were had, but my understanding is that a session was stopped and that there was therefore further discussion on defence spending, in addition to those that were had earlier.
We agreed—all countries agreed—that it is right that NATO countries pull their weight to ensure our collective defence. All allies have pledged to aim to move towards spending 2% of GDP on defence by 2020. As the Statement made clear, NATO’s European allies are stepping up their spending and non-US defence spending has, as mentioned in the Statement, increased by $87 billion since 2014. We are committed to meeting the NATO guideline to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence in every year of this Parliament, with the defence budget increasing by at least 0.5% a year above inflation—and we fully comply with NATO’s definition of defence spending.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about EU relations. As the Prime Minister has said many times, we are leaving the EU but we are not stepping back from our unconditional commitment to the security of our continent and our leadership in NATO. Neither NATO nor the EU has the full suite of capabilities to tackle the range of threats we face; those can be tackled successfully only through closer co-operation between NATO, the EU and member states. We are taking forward the seven key strands of activity identified in the joint declaration announced in the Warsaw summit: in cyber, hybrid warfare, maritime, military mobility and exercises. We will of course discuss our future security relationship with the EU over the coming weeks, as part of our ongoing negotiations.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, following the Welsh summit, when all the nations in NATO gave a firm promise to increase spending to 2%, progress has been abysmally slow in very many cases—and in some cases it has gone backwards. Now we have renewed promises. How confident are the Government that those who met in Brussels last week will this time deliver on their promises? While it has always been thought rather bad form to name and shame nations that do not comply with their promises, would it not be a good idea if the Government could find a way of demonstrating each year the progress that all members of NATO are making to get towards the level to which they are all committed?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As the Statement made clear, there was and is a sense of urgency and renewed commitment to move towards spending 2% of GDP on defence by 2024. It is only fair to say that our European allies and Canada, for instance, added $41 billion to their defence spending in 2017 alone. That is a commitment and we are confident that countries have a sense of urgency. We will continue to meet our commitment and will encourage our allies to do the same.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The Brussels declaration makes it clear that NATO’s posture on Russia continues to be defence and deterrence, on the one hand, and dialogue on the other. When the secretary-general was recently in London, he drew heavily on his own experience as Prime Minister of Norway and said something with which many of us agreed: namely, that defence and deterrence are insufficient alone and that dialogue is necessary. Indeed, the more difficult the relationship, the more dialogue there needs to be. So why do our Government seem content with their policy of having no high-level meetings with Russia? This leaves our NATO allies to conduct bilateral relations with Russia that involve, for example, Hungary, Italy, Greece or Turkey, where the Kremlin can count on a sympathetic ear and not, it appears, a robust voice, while the President of the United States said only today, quite clearly, that in his view the deterioration of US-Russia relations is a result of,
“many years of US foolishness and stupidity”.
All this undermines the integrity of the alliance and moves away from unity. Why do we not step up to the plate and engage in robust dialogue?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As the noble Lord knows, NATO’s practical co-operation with Russia remains suspended but channels such as the NATO-Russia Council are an important means to keep dialogue open. He is right that we have suspended all planned high-level bilateral contacts with Russia, but we continue to engage with it multilaterally when it is in our interests to do so. It is in our mutual interests to reduce the risk of misunderstanding, miscalculation and unintended escalation. The Prime Minister has always been clear that our approach to Russia is “Engage, but beware”.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord was not in the Chamber to hear the Statement, so should really not participate.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, in future we probably all need to spend a lot more on defence and security in the wider sense, not just on military equipment. Has my noble friend noticed that, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, America spends $31 billion a year of its total defence budget of $680 billion—about 5%—on European defence? Has she also noticed that America pays into NATO’s direct expenses common funding budget about 22%? Does she agree that those figures are miles away from those of 70% and 90% that the President talked about in Brussels? He understands hard facts and believes in strong dealing. Will she make sure that he is in this case presented with the hard facts—in the friendliest possible way, of course?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank my noble friend for the clarification, and I hope that the President takes note as well. My noble friend is absolutely right. As I said in the Statement, NATO’s European allies are stepping up their defence spending. Non-US defence spending has increased by $87 billion since 2014. Progress is being made, as NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said, but there is more to do and we will keep up the pressure.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, anyone present in Brussels last week would regard the Statement as an inadequate account of the nature of the summit, not least because of President Trump’s divisive, disruptive and dismissive behaviour—particularly towards our Prime Minister. It is of great importance to bear in mind now the complete unpredictability of the person whom I suppose is the nominal and practical leader of the North Atlantic alliance. The Prime Minister says that she welcomes his visit to Helsinki to meet Mr Putin; perhaps we had better wait until we hear what he says about Mr Putin before we extend such a welcome. But there was one matter on which the Statement was right: we must increase our own defence spending, not just to satisfy Mr Trump but—given his unpredictable nature—to allow for the possibility that Europe may have to act on its own.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As the noble Lord knows, we are meeting the 2% target and 20% of our defence budget is spent on equipment. We will continue to increase the defence budget by 0.5% a year above inflation. We take our commitments in this area extremely seriously.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has a good point: I have said previously in this Chamber that we are no doubt deluding ourselves. We have a sense of complacency. Experts, lay men, the Back-Benchers of both Houses and the HCDC itself have all said that we are spending insufficient money on defence, and talking about the extra things that NATO can do and how it can help is nonsense if we cannot even pay enough money to support our own defence forces. However, my question does not relate to that; my question relates to what was said about defence and security agreements with the European allies as we move forward with Brexit. Is it true that, once we leave the European Union, in any operation such as Atalanta off the Horn of Africa, the most senior post that any British officer will be able to hold is that of lieutenant-colonel, whereas at the moment British officers command many of these operations? What are the implications of that?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am afraid I will have to write to the noble Lord with that information.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it was very noticeable that while the summit was taking place, Russia was enjoying an enormous propaganda coup. In support of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, perhaps I may put it to my noble friend that, bearing in mind the unpredictability of the leader of the western world, it really is crucial that we engage in dialogue. It is utterly farcical that our relations with Russia are worse than they were at the height of the Cold War. I ask my noble friend to convey that to the Prime Minister.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said in a previous answer, although we have suspended all planned high-level bilateral contacts, we continue to engage with Russia multilaterally.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, in her Statement the Prime Minister said:
“Transatlantic unity has been fundamental to the protection and projection of our interests and values for generations”.
However, to date transatlantic unity is undermined by the President of the United States. We never know what Mr Trump will say next—and, frankly, I suspect that nor does Mr Trump. The other important point in the Prime Minister’s Statement is that she has proposed a “bold new partnership” between the UK and our European allies post Brexit. When working with France in the difficulties that we have with the Americans, will the Government recognise that Britain and France will have to step up to the plate and that we will have to take the lead in NATO in defending Europe?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We are very clear that we have played a leading role in NATO and will continue to do so. We will obviously be looking to have a deep security partnership with Europe. We do many things bilaterally with the French and will continue to do so.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, in that specific context, the UK has always been a little stand-offish about EU defence co-operation, even though it is certainly set within NATO, and it has cold-shouldered Permanent Structured Cooperation, known as PESCO. However, I understand that a few weeks ago Defence Ministers agreed to support the European Intervention Initiative, or EII for short—there are a lot of acronyms—put forward by President Macron. I believe that the UK was one of the nine EU countries that signed up to this but I do not think we have heard a great deal about it. It is about joint European action in the event of emergencies and crises—a sort of coalition or club of the willing. Can the noble Baroness tell us a little more about it and will the Government advertise it? It is a good example of the UK’s willingness to take part in European defence co-operation, about which they are sometimes a little shy.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I cannot remember exactly when— I have repeated so many Statements recently—but I referred to it in a recent previous Statement, so there is some more information there. She is right that we were an initial signatory to the letter, along with, I think, eight other European countries. As I have explained to the House, I do not have the details with me today but I am happy to write to the noble Baroness. However, it is something that we discussed in response to a Statement a few weeks ago.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness not recognise that there was an extraordinary divergence between the NATO communiqué, from which the Statement is heavily drawn and which said all the right things about increased spending and taking a robust attitude towards Russia, and what the President of the United States said at the sessions and to the press afterwards, when he said all the wrong things about pretty well everything? Does she not also recognise that the way in which President Trump links his not terribly well-informed concerns about trade with European countries and about the energy balance, when he got confused between Germany’s imports of gas and its overall energy supplies, is extraordinarily unhelpful? It undermines the whole doctrine of NATO deterrence, which is based not on transactional attitudes, such as those of President Trump, and not on conditionality about trade but on the unconditional support of all NATO members for each other? Surely it would be better if we faced up to the fact that there is this contradiction. What can the noble Baroness say about that?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Brussels declaration was agreed by all allies, including President Trump, at the summit. As I said, he was clear about his commitment to NATO. The US has more than doubled its budget allocation for its European deterrence initiative and US forces are leading NATO’s enhanced forward presence in Poland, so we also need to look at the US’s actions and how they link into the support that the President reiterated following the summit.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, have the Germans given us an absolute assurance that they will bring forward the date by which they will reach the 2% contribution target?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
There was general agreement that there was an urgent need to step up defence spending. All allies agreed to it. The 2% is by 2024.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the 2% for NATO is well understood, but the United Kingdom aspires to much more than just operating in the NATO context. There is now talk of a global Britain post Brexit, with deployments to the Far East of maritime and air forces, and we have already seen some of that. Surely 2% is not enough to cover such commitments and more should be made available to defence.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Our modernising defence programme is obviously critical. We want to play a global role and we will continue to fund defence as we see fit to meet our global obligations.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, when we gave our commitment to 400 extra people for Afghanistan, did any other NATO nations say they would join in that commitment, bearing in mind that we will have people there for 23 years and possibly even longer into the future?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I do not have an answer to that question; I will have to get back to the noble Lord. We have an uplift of 440 troops. These men and women will be focused in the Kabul security force, where we will continue to work closely with our NATO partners and the Afghan security forces.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Monday 16th July 2018
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 View all Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, the nod has come that we are resuming the Second Reading debate on the Bill before the House. Tea might be the preferred choice of those who are not remaining.
I start by joining other noble Lords in complimenting and congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on her most distinguished and illuminating maiden speech. Plainly, she is going to be a great strength in the House.
I spoke in the debate just over three years ago on the Select Committee’s post-legislative scrutiny report on the 2005 Act. I focused principally on the perhaps somewhat surprising decision of the Supreme Court in the Cheshire West case, a decision by a narrow four-to-three majority vote, which came out six days after the Select Committee’s report. It was a decision which gave huge relevance to the issues arising and highlighted an urgent need to legislate afresh.
The critical concept then under question was what amounted to deprivation of liberty. The central question raised was what was required to authorise it. Put simply, Cheshire West hugely increased the number of cases in which people were to be regarded in law as deprived of their liberty, and it left in place the need for two distinct categories of authorisation. One was for people detained in hospitals and care homes who continued, and continue still, to require authorisation under the Schedule A1 procedures known as DoLS, deprivation of liberty safeguards. The other is for those, like the two particular patients under direct consideration in the Cheshire West case itself, detained in community settings whose placements presently require authorisation by the Court of Protection under a Section 16(2)(a) order.
By the time of the March 2015 debate here, the Government had already asked the Law Commission to look into all this. As eventually the Law Commission came to note in its March 2017 report, there were more than 14 times as many applications for DoLS in the year 2015-16 than in the year before Cheshire West two years earlier, 2013-14. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights records in its recent June 2018 report, 70% of the almost 220,000 such applications in the past year were not authorised within the statutory timeframe and, I quote from the report’s summary:
“Consequently, many incapacitated people continue to be deprived of their liberty unlawfully and those responsible for their care, or for obtaining authorisations, are having to work out how best to break the law”.
Indeed, paragraph 32 of the report says that,
“hundreds of thousands of people are being unlawfully detained”.
Your Lordships will of course agree that that is no light matter. There is therefore real urgency in processing the amending legislation before us.
In that context, I touch next on one particular recommendation made by the Joint Committee in paragraph 45 of its report, which has already been alluded to by a number of your Lordships, the recommendation that Parliament should set out a statutory definition of deprivation of liberty that clarifies the Cheshire West test and,
“would extend safeguards only to those who truly need them, whilst respecting the right to personal autonomy of those who are clearly content with their situation, even if they are not capable of verbalising such consent”.
For my part, while certainly not disagreeing with that recommendation, and while recognising that the majority of the court in Cheshire West may well be regarded as having inappropriately and needlessly—by which I mean going substantially further than required by the Strasbourg jurisprudence on Article 5—gone too wide in their categorisation of deprivation of liberty, I would be disinclined to burden and complicate this current proposed amending legislation still further by including within it a statutory definition. Better, I would suggest, to cure the all too obvious existing problems of authorisations as speedily as possible.
As to that, I broadly support the approach in the Bill, which essentially comes to this: first, a proposed replacement Schedule AA1 to authorise deprivation of liberty by new, proportionate and less bureaucratic means; and, secondly, extending the safeguards into domestic settings—in other words, to apply to all those deprived of their liberty irrespective of where they reside, thus including those who were the specific subject of consideration in the Cheshire West case and therefore relieving some of the pressure on the Court of Protection.
I am in no position today to comment helpfully on the various detailed criticisms of the Bill made by several of your Lordships in the debate, nor even to deal with the availability or otherwise of legal aid to which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred. That will be for Committee.
The last matter I want to touch on, although I do not think it could or should directly affect the form in which the Bill should reach the statute book, is what has been called the Mental Health Act interface. In its hugely impressive, very long, 259-page report of March 2017, the Law Commission, in chapter 13, under this heading, pointed out that,
“the non-consensual care and treatment of people with mental health problems is governed largely by two parallel legal schemes – the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act”,
the former providing for detention based on protection of the patient and the public, irrespective of mental capacity, whereas the Mental Capacity Act applies only to those who lack capacity, and provides for deprivation of liberty based on the person’s best interests. But, as it goes on to say,
“there is considerable overlap between the two regimes, and the relationship can be extremely complex”.
Chapter 13 concludes with Recommendation 39:
“The UK Government and the Welsh Government should review mental health law in England and in Wales with a view to the introduction of a single legislative scheme governing non-consensual care or treatment of both physical and mental disorders, whereby such care or treatment may only be given if the person lacks the capacity to consent”.
Following that report, in October 2017 the Government commissioned an independent review of the Mental Health Act 1983, an Act which I ought perhaps to confess was enacted principally and specifically to deal with an ECHR challenge which, as counsel for the Government, I had lost in Strasbourg the previous year.
As your Lordships know, the present review is being conducted by the most distinguished group. It is chaired by Professor Sir Simon Wessely, and its vice-chairs include our own noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and a much admired, now retired High Court Family Division judge, Sir Mark Hedley. Its terms of reference include recommending improvements in relation to rising detention rates.
In its interim report of 1 May this year, the independent review discusses the interface with the Mental Capacity Act. At paragraph 7.3 of the review, it states:
“We agree and support the urgent reform of DoLS to make sure service users receive the most appropriate care for their needs”,
also pointing out that,
“there needs to be an appropriate calibration between resources spent on delivery of care and those spent on safeguards surrounding the delivery of that care”.
The review, having noted the Government’s broad acceptance of the Law Commission’s conclusions, continues:
“The government has also indicated that it awaits our recommendations on the interface issues”,
and observes:
“It is likely that, if only for practical reasons, we will be unlikely to be recommending ‘fusion’ between the MCA and MHA in the short term, but will be considering this as a longer-term option”.
Finally, to return to the Joint Committee report of 29 June, the interface between the two legislative regimes is thoughtfully discussed in paragraphs 70 to 74, and recommendations are made in paragraph 74. The Mental Health Act review will clearly want to note those recommendations and the concerns expressed by the Joint Committee. Clearly, the resolution of the critical interface between the two legislative schemes is a work in progress, and we are likely to have to return to the Mental Capacity Act yet again in probably well over a year’s time.
In the meantime, I would strongly support the amending legislation now before us, although I recognise that it will need to be considered carefully in Committee. I repeat: this Bill is urgently required now to end the lawlessness consequent on Cheshire West.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on her compassionate and informed maiden speech.
Many organisations working in the field of learning disability, the people who are the focus of my speech today, welcome the reform of the deprivation of liberty safeguards. Both the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the House of Lords post-legislative scrutiny committee, of which I was a member, highlighted major concerns about the implementation of deprivation of liberty safeguards. I am grateful to several organisations for their briefings in advance of today’s debate, including Mencap, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and others. I refer to my interests in the register. I speak also as the carer of an adult relative for whom I hold a lasting power of attorney.
Recommendation 37 of the post-legislative scrutiny committee suggested that,
“replacement legislative provisions and associated forms be drafted in clear and simple terms, to ensure they can be understood and applied effectively by professionals, individuals, families and carers”.
Some of the briefings received in the last few days remind us of the complexity of this legislative area and how easy it is to misunderstand it.
Any adult, regardless of any communication or cognitive impairment, has the right to make or be supported to make their own decisions wherever possible. The Mental Capacity Act supports this principle while also providing a legal framework, the DoLS, so that decisions can be made when someone lacks capacity. When the Government introduced those safeguards over 10 years ago, the rules required that they would allow a deprivation of liberty if the chosen restraints or restrictions worked in a person’s best interests. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Finlay for clarifying that best interests will remain integral to the amended Act. I look forward to confirmation from the Minister that that is indeed the case, as it has been a matter of some concern to the organisations briefing me. That takes us to the heart of what they were intended to do, but implementation of the Mental Capacity Act and the deprivation of liberty safeguards has been poor. The health and care sector does not have the training, awareness and skills to carry it out effectively. It takes a willingness and considerable skill to protect people’s liberty.
The impact assessment before the original safeguards were introduced estimated that 50,000 people may be eligible for them, but that the number of applications would be much lower because not all of those at risk would actually need to be deprived of their liberty to protect it. The assessment also held that numbers would fall after the initial year, as parties became familiar with the safeguards and, crucially, found ways to avoid deprivation of liberty happening. In fact, the opposite has occurred. In 2015-16, 105,000 completed applications were received, of which 73% were granted—86% in London. However, the impact assessment estimated that only 25% of applications submitted would be approved and justifiably deprived of their liberty.
The intention was that the safeguards would drive a change in practice that would seek to avoid deprivation of liberty occurring, but it has not happened. Will these new safeguards do better in preventing people being deprived of their liberty and protecting it, as originally intended? Or will they simply streamline the administrative processes and reduce the financial burden to the state of the authorisation process, while reducing the focus on an individual’s own choices and preferences? These are the fears that are being expressed.
We clearly want more than that. Our goals must be to improve care and treatment for people lacking capacity; to reduce restrictive practice; and to ensure that individuals in vulnerable circumstances, their families and carers have a say in their care. This is absolutely necessary, as people who lack capacity may be dependent on the good will of their carers for some of the most basic rights and freedoms, including, for example, the right to choose and spend time with their friends—rights which we all take for granted. This is an issue I am currently struggling with for the adult relative I mentioned earlier. There is an obvious power imbalance in these relationships. The Law Commission report suggested wider changes to the Mental Capacity Act than envisaged in the Bill, including giving more weight to the individual’s wishes and preferences and the establishment of supported decision-making. However, the Government’s impact assessment states that they have decided not to legislate for this,
“at this point, as we think there are other effective levers to deliver improvement in these areas”.
What are these other effective levers?
A key concern of the post-legislative scrutiny committee was the abject failure of many services to understand how to increase someone’s capacity by, for example, providing them with accessible information; patiently making up for limited educational opportunities by increasing their understanding; assessing their communication skills, as recommended by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists in its briefing; and assessing their capacity to make a specific decision on more than one occasion. This is what supported decision-making involves and it takes time. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, explained how time-consuming this is when it is done well. Alongside the need to give individuals a voice about their own care is the need to give families and carers a voice. The principle of best interests in the Mental Capacity Act had much to say on consulting others involved in the individual’s care. I share the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, about the Bournewood gap. Would HL have still been detained today, but legally, and would his carers’ views have still been overridden? In his evidence to the post-legislative scrutiny committee, Mark Neary said that he would not want any other family to have to experience the heartache and trouble he did. Will the role of families and LPAs be strengthened or weakened by this Bill? If strengthened, will the Minister reassure the House by explaining exactly how?
Some practitioners have suggested the introduction of support agreements, which would allow people with learning disabilities to nominate their own supporter or co-decision-maker, thus shifting power back to disabled people and those they rely on to help them make decisions. These would be a bit like lasting powers of attorney, only easier to make and more geared towards supporting the person to make decisions for themselves or jointly making decisions with a trusted person. Co-decision-making is very popular with grass-roots community organisations in Canada, and it is being adopted in Ireland, Australia, Texas, Israel and many other states and countries.
The responsibility for gathering the necessary proposed assessments, identifying whether a person is being deprived of their liberty, determining the person’s capacity, and determining whether the arrangement is necessary and proportionate and who should be consulted—all of this may be left to the same person: the care home manager. This puts a large responsibility on this individual and creates a potential conflict of interest. The person who may be responsible for the deprivation may also be responsible for assessing and gathering information. This hardly seems an appropriate way to balance the power differential, and I would like reassurance on this. Do care home managers currently have the skills to take on this responsibility? The impact assessment suggests that they will need half a day’s “familiarisation” with the new policy. That would not be sufficient.
My third area of concern is the ability to appeal decisions to deprive individuals of their liberty. The new role of an approved mental capacity professional is proposed—an independent, skilled assessor with a role similar to that of approved mental health professionals in the Mental Health Act. The expertise and independence of this role is a welcome addition to the safeguards, but it seems that AMCPs will only be called upon if the individual objects. Who judges if the person is objecting? Even access to an independent review would need to be facilitated through the care home manager, as would access to advocacy. We need to think carefully about this.
Finally, the appeal process will still be through the Court of Protection, but this process has been criticised as more complex and more difficult to access than the tribunal system in the Mental Health Act. The impact assessment suggests that only 0.5% of cases will end up in the Court of Protection. But given that a quarter to a half of patients detained under the Mental Health Act appeal to the tribunal system, can the Minister explain how the Government have arrived at such a low number? The review being chaired by Sir Simon Wessely is due out later this year and, as we have already heard, some proposals are expected to relate to the interface between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act. Could the Minister clarify, as other noble Lords have asked him to do, whether the Bill will be further amended when the Wessely review is published or whether the final stages of the Bill will be delayed until we know the content of that review and its recommendations?
This amendment Bill may work out to be cheaper for the state, although there are worries about the increased burden on care providers. The role of your Lordships’ House in Committee will be to ensure that the proposed liberty protection scheme lives up to its name.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, this Bill should be a lesson to us all. It is designed to correct the disaster created by another piece of legislation, introduced not to address a common problem or by popular demand by a group, but at the instigation of the judiciary, addressing a problem we did not know we had. Unfortunately, it does not solve the problem, and this House’s ability to improve it will merely ameliorate the ongoing disaster.
The DoLS legislation, since its inception, was designed to plug the Bournewood gap, which the Minister described quite clearly. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, pointed out, because this legislation will no longer have the best interests of the patient at heart, it will do nothing to close better the Bournewood gap. It will leave that gap and will leave exposed the several related cases. Although the bureaucracy of the Bill apparently tries to address it, it does nothing of the sort.
The problem is that we are trying to combat an edifice of poor professional practice—in this I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said. However, rather than improve professional practice by working in the way that families and professional carers work and talk to each other about what should happen to improve the situation of the individual, we have moved away from what health and social care considerations should look like and into a world of legalities. Legislation and regulation can never substitute for good practice. They can provide a framework within which good practice is enacted, but they are no substitute. That is where the DoLS legislation has been such a disaster. I respect that the virtue in this Bill is the intention to make things safer, more competent and more accountable, but theoretical legal advantages have led to a massively intrusive bureaucracy of paper schedules and rules, which this Bill diminishes but does not solve.
For the past three years, as a result of widespread concern about the adverse impact of the deprivation of liberty safeguards on the care and treatment of older people, I have been the convenor of an informal group of members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists Faculty of Old Age Psychiatry. The group was established to liaise with the Law Commission and other organisations to consider issues arising from the draft liberty protection safeguards and the original Law Commission’s draft bill, part of which—but only part—now comes to this House as a new Bill. I think everybody here agrees that the monstrous piece of bureaucratic machinery that is the deprivation of liberty safeguards has caused untold harm and cost a huge amount of money that has been diverted from finite clinical and social care budgets at a time when the country can ill afford it, and when the quality of care in hospitals and residential homes is barely adequate and often downright poor. The money pouring uselessly down the DoLS drain is a disgrace. The detailed problems were well articulated by the Law Commission in chapter 4 of its paper 372, published last year.
The Law Commission, through Tim Spencer-Lane and his colleagues, has done an enormous amount of hard work and consulted widely to produce improved and less bureaucratic procedures. However, it was constrained by its brief to take the judgment in Cheshire West as the starting point, which contained, in my view and that of many others, an unworkable definition of “deprivation of liberty”, which most people find extraordinary. That is my main concern about the Bill before us today.
Before I get on to the definition issues, however, I want to express my surprise and concern that some of the most far-seeing and progressive parts of the draft Bill produced by the Law Commission have been omitted from the Bill before us. As many others have mentioned, we have lost proposals that were either accepted or accepted in principle in the Government’s response to the Law Commission. The first relates to strengthening the place of the individual’s wishes and feelings in Section 4, any notion of which has been abandoned in favour of what is “necessary and proportionate”. These are vague words that may well imply that, in this age of austerity, the person will get care in a way that is convenient for the authorities making the judgment to impose and that does not take account of the individual’s expressed wishes or include a discussion about what they might wish. Although “best interests” is mentioned, when the crunch comes, it will be ignored.
I want to refer here to the description of a person as being of “unsound mind”. If that is old-fashioned now, and clinically irrelevant as a phrase, what will it sound like in 10 years, when it really will be past its prime? It is simply not a phrase that we should be using in the Bill.
Secondly, the proposal to strengthen the safeguards around Section 5 in relation to serious interference in people’s lives has been ditched. Thirdly, the proposal enabling advance consent to be given has been omitted, which was accepted in principle and would have had a real part to play in allowing people to say what arrangements they are happy to accept when it comes to a later stage in their life. Fourthly, regulation-making powers for supported decision-making schemes have been omitted. Again, all of these were thought at the time by the commission to be important steps necessary to strengthen the Mental Capacity Act in how it works across the board. There has been widespread approval of these provisions by families, professionals and lawyers—a unanimity that is quite rare. Can the Minister explain why these good things have been dropped when there was such an initial positive response? It is not as though there will be another chance. There will not be another Mental Capacity Act for some time, probably years, so now is our chance to improve it.
I return now to what is meant by “deprivation of liberty”. The Cheshire West Supreme Court judgment 2014, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, indicated, gave a significantly wider definition than had been previously understood both by public authorities and the lower courts to apply in the health and social care context. I will not repeat the argument of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale— a bird in a gilded cage is still a bird in a cage—but her logic, as always, is totally unassailable. However, it has been applied in cases that the Supreme Court did not have the opportunity to review. Difficulty arises where everyone—patient, family members and professionals—are all either consenting to admission and the care and treatment as proposed or are not objecting, which also applies to patients in their own homes.
Approximately 750,000 people in the UK—I have heard a figure of up to 2 million, but I am talking about people who have definite and serious lack of capacity—lack the capacity to make major decisions, and the vast majority of these patients fall into “willing” or “not objecting” categories when it comes to their care. Two-thirds are living in their own homes. It is hard indeed to see in what way they are deprived of their liberty by being admitted willingly to a hospital, nursing home or hospice or being cared for in their own homes by family or professional carers whom they are happy to receive. Furthermore, when these Supreme Court criteria are applied to patients admitted to general hospitals, hospices and care homes as the Mental Health Act 2007 dictates, a ludicrous situation now arises. Before anything is done for the patients, a bureaucratic procedure is enacted to ensure that their rights are being considered, although in practice, nothing changes as a result. Lots of forms are signed and boxes ticked but little else.
Approximately one-third of older patients admitted to hospitals through A&E departments are suffering from transient confusional states consequent on physical illness, or mild cognitive impairments that intermittently, fluctuatingly or permanently affect their capacity to consent. The vast majority of such individuals—of 16 million annual hospital admissions, an estimated 3 million individual admissions—fall under the current jurisdiction. Because nobody is implementing this Act, they are currently being treated informally in their best interests with clinical staff relying on GMC guidance on decision-making and discussion with family and carers. The intrusion of an artificial safeguarding mechanism between those who did not know they were depriving someone of their liberty and those who did not know they were being deprived is a kind of Alice in Wonderland nightmare and ludicrously expensive to administer. We have in the Bill a system that will still be applied to tens of thousands of people and a pie-in-the-sky, almost delusional, impact assessment of its likely costs if it is implemented as drafted.
The result of the overinclusive definition of deprivation of liberty has resulted in very serious interface problems that other noble Lords have mentioned between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act, and the misuse or overuse of Mental Health Act legislation to detain elderly people on general wards to treat them for physical health problems, simply because sectioning someone is easier to hurry through than the DoLS procedures and easier than the proposed liberty protection safeguards. The use of the Mental Health Act usually rules out any subsequent placement in a care home because patients are rejected by the care home system if they have been sectioned, and leads to extra responsibility for Section 117 aftercare funding for the local authority. I can give the Minister a catalogue of cases where the misuse of the Mental Health Act and/or DoLS has resulted in poor care or a decision by relatives to reject a care plan because they do not want their relatives stigmatised by being sectioned.
The interface problem has led to widespread illegality by the misapplication of legislation. The Bill continues this problem and, while I understand the wish to wait for Sir Simon Wessely’s review of the Mental Health Act to be complete, we are rather stuck with a gravely inadequate situation. Inevitably, problems will continue to arise at the interface between these two regimes unless we are serious about sorting them out.
The crucial thing for me is that the criteria for “deprivation of liberty” need to be changed before any new legislation is approved. It is pointless to wait to see what we can put into a code of practice. We cannot legislate on such a serious matter by leaving it to a code of practice; I simply do not think it will work. I do not believe it is reasonable to include admission and/or residence of incapacitated persons in homes and hospitals where there is no objection by the patient, family carers or professional carers, or to include private individuals living by personal choice in their own family homes, supervised by family members or professional carers. It really should apply only to those who express dissent or opposition, or where there is clear disagreement between those responsible for the care. I would like the Minister to explain why, given the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that supported the view that I and many others have just expressed—there is a need to revise the criteria—a change in the definition has not been included and whether the Government will consider bringing forward an amendment to address this problem before Committee?
No legislation should be enacted until it is clear that the law will improve the care of individuals subjected to it and genuinely protect them from abuse or unwarranted repressive conditions. We need to reinject some common sense into care relationships. Without better definitions and a serious reduction in the number of individuals being subjected to them, the liberty protection safeguards will continue to create anxiety in staff when there should be none and militate against the decent care that I believe everyone in this House agrees society should provide.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting and hugely well-informed Second Reading of the Bill and I join other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to her place. I am sure that she will bring a new and welcome voice to the House on all issues. My noble friend Lady Barker gave us a helpful account—a history lesson, if you like—which put everything into context. It is worth saying to the Minister now that it is absolutely not the case that we all sat around a table and decided what needed to be said. We have come to our views all on our own, and if we are saying much the same things, it is because they need to be said and are true.
I, too, welcome the Bill. It aims to make the process of depriving a vulnerable individual of their liberty simpler and less bureaucratic. Everyone here would agree that society is judged on how it manages its members who are vulnerable and unable to speak for themselves. This Bill makes a fair attempt at this, but it is not the finished article and I would probably give it a C. The points I will make fall into two distinct categories: points concerning the process of the creation of the impact of the Bill once it is enacted, and the second concerning the legislation itself: what should be in it, what should be taken out, and which clauses could be better worded.
The people who will be affected by this Bill are likely to be old, have mental health problems, autism or a learning disability, or have more than one of these conditions. I should refer to my interests as set out in the register. I chair a learning disability trust caring for more than 2,000 people, many of whom in our care lack capacity. I thank all of those who have provided us with briefings, and it is clear that common themes came out of them. One was the issue of finance. There was a feeling that this is going to be an expensive exercise. There will be a need to train assessors in care homes, to which I shall return later, to train advocates and, of course, to train the trainers. All of this will need to be rolled across England and Wales. Will care providers have to fund this, or will one-off training grants be made available? Certainly the system is under so much stress at the moment that it is unlikely to have the slack in budgets for extra training.
Then there is the role of care home managers. For some this might seem fine and a natural extension of their role. For others it may go into completely new territory where they have no experience and no confidence. I am sure that the Minister appreciates that most people with a learning disability no longer live in a care home but with carers in a domestic supported living setting. It would be a very large ask for those carers to assess the mental capacity of the person they support. Most carers are on the national living wage and may not be professionally ready to make such assessments.
Can the Minister clarify where the AMCP—approved mental capacity practitioner—sits in the new system and from where their funding comes? Where liberty protection safeguards are put in place, could an affected individual have an appeal funded? Will legal aid be available? Will the Minister explain why best interests are not included and what has taken their place? At the useful briefing last week, I inquired about consultation. For a Bill of such importance and with such a potentially huge impact, can the Minister clarify what consultation there was with provider organisations in the sector, the LGA, ADASS and the public at large? Over the last few months, many of us have had really interesting conversations with Sir Simon Wessely about his work reviewing the Mental Health Act. We welcome that review, but would it not have made sense to have waited until Sir Simon finished his work and then have a single view of the issue?
The Bill did not start from cold: the House of Lords Select Committee reported in 2014 on its scrutiny of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Many noble Lords speaking today took part in those committee sittings. There was also the Law Commission’s Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty report of 2017. They both made many fine recommendations and, along with many in the sector, I am surprised that a lot of work will need to be done in the summer to make the Bill finally fit for purpose. Among the areas I will be looking at in Committee is the issue of 16 and 17 year-olds. To include them in the legislation would align with the Mental Capacity Act. Can the Minister tell the House the rationale for not putting this transitional cohort in the Bill?
Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights uses the phrase “unsound mind”. The same paragraph also talks about vagrants. It was first drafted in 1950, nearly 70 years ago. It is not used professionally now and the profession believes that it has no place in a piece of modernising legislation; it creates unease among individuals, advocates and the sector alike. Article 5(2) calls for a detainee to be informed of the reason they are to be deprived of their liberty. Rather than having to refer elsewhere, how much more straightforward would it be to have this in the Bill? I support my noble friend Lady Barker’s view that any part of the Bill referring to the ECHR should spell out the impacts rather than cross-reference the Brexit debate.
Although not part of the legislation, the code of practice, once enacted, will make the Bill workable. Will the Minister clarify what progress has been made on writing a draft? Can noble Lords have sight of it? If so, when? This is a complex and important piece of legislation; I hope that the Minister is not expecting to complete it with just one day in Committee. We need to produce an A-plus Bill to send to the Commons. It may take more time than the Government want, but all the people affected by the Bill deserve better.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be speaking in this Second Reading debate. Although we might be missing a few of our known experts in this rapidly organised debate, we can anticipate full participation in the next stages of the Bill. The debate thus far has been informed and passionate, as one would have expected.
The maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was a model of its kind, and I welcome her to the House. She brings great experience. As someone who has been involved for 20 years in this House working on behalf of women and abused women and on domestic violence, I welcome her to our cohort of people across the House who campaign on these issues. I look forward to working with her in due course.
We have had some excellent contributions. Many noble Lords have been asking pertinent questions, starting with the ones from my noble friend Lord Touhig. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, was very modest. She has a lots of practical experience dealing with these issues. Just because she was not here when we worked on the original legislation does not mean that she does not have a valuable contribution to make to this. I am also pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, back in her place. I am glad that she managed to fly home from wherever it was to take part.
I thank the Minister and the Bill team for organising the briefing we had last week. It was a packed meeting—and quite hot, it has to be said—and it showed the level of interest that there is in this small Bill. I also thank the many organisations and individuals that have sent us their briefs and their views on the Bill, and which are, at this moment, working to see how it might be best improved—Mencap, the LGA ADSS, Age UK, VoiceAbility, Sense, Alzheimer’s Society, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, a doctor from Cardiff University called Lucy Series, who sent me an excellent brief, the National Autistic Society and so on.
This might be a small Bill, but it is one with potentially enormous consequences. It demands proper parliamentary scrutiny and, where necessary, amendments that will make it fit for purpose on its own terms. Anything short of this will be selling short the human rights of many thousands of vulnerable people in our country. As yet, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, I am not confident that the Government have made enough time available for proper consideration of this important piece of legislation. We have experts in these matters in this House. I was witness to and a participant in these discussions—not key to them, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was, but I was here—and I know from those debates how complex a challenge these matters are and that it is an issue that at the same time begs absolute clarity to serve justice for our most vulnerable fellow citizens.
I hope the Minister and the Bill team will know that we will be pressing for more time to be made available and that we will be doing it with all our support. Apart from anything else, the Minister needs to address the suspicion, which I have heard whispered, that the Government are seeking to hurry or bounce this Bill through the Lords in the summer to try to avoid the detailed and essential scrutiny that it deserves and that it would receive here. I am sure that that cannot be the case, but more time would probably dispel that terrible rumour.
As we can see, the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill amends the Mental Capacity Act to replace the DoLS framework, which, as noble Lords know, authorises the deprivation of liberty of people who lack the mental capacity to consent to their care arrangements in hospitals, care homes or other settings. Quite rightly, DoLS has been widely criticised as excessively complex and bureaucratic, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, in his great speech. I was shocked to learn that 70% are behind time. That speaks for itself. Also it is costly and offers inadequate protection for human rights.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling on Cheshire West, which offered a broader definition of the deprivation of liberty, there are now some 230,000 applications for the authorisation of DoLS in England and Wales each year—I keep hearing different figures and I am rather confused, but it is an enormous number and there is a huge backlog. Local authorities are unable to keep up with the volume of applications, leaving them, in the words of the Joint Committee on Human Rights,
“having to work out how best to break the law”.
So it is costing a huge amount of public money, that is rising, and it is not doing its job.
So this is undoubtedly a timely piece of legislation; notwithstanding some of the reservations that some noble Lords have about this, I am fairly convinced that this is an urgent matter. The question we have to address here in your Lordships’ House is whether the Bill will do the job it is asked to do.
The Law Commission was asked to review the framework between 2015 and 2017. It consulted widely and came up with the new framework, the liberty protection safeguards, which offer more flexible and less bureaucratic means of authorising deprivation of liberty, channelling resources into situations where there are conflicts or concerns about a person’s care arrangements. It also included proposed amendments to the MCA’s best interest test, highlighted by my noble friend Lord Touhig and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, among others, and to promote supported decision-making to bring the MCA closer in line with the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The Law Commissioner, Nicholas Paines QC, said—and the Minister quoted him—that the deprivation of liberty safeguards are failing those they were set up to protect. He went on to say:
“We’re pleased the government agrees and we stand ready to work with them to implement these reforms as soon as possible”.
I have read the Government’s response to the Law Commission report, and it seems to accept the majority of recommendations contained—it is a 24-page document and I had some time at the weekend. However, the Bill we have before us today, while having the same title as the Law Commission’s proposed scheme, appears to have removed most or some of the important safeguards it proposed, as other noble Lords mentioned. That raises some serious questions, starting with whether the Bill complies with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and whether it moves the UK further away from compliance with the CRPD, instead of closer towards it. The Bill has major implications for the human rights of hundreds of thousands of people with dementia, learning disabilities, brain injury and mental health problems.
I am disappointed that there is no accompanying equality impact assessment. Paragraphs 16.1 and 16.2 of the impact assessment refer to equality matters. Basically, what they say is that there is no need for an equality impact assessment because,
“the new system will have beneficial impacts for older and disabled people”.
Surely that is a matter for examination, not something one can assume, particularly when we look at Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It seems to me that, if that is being diluted, it is very important that we have a proper, independent equality impact assessment, so I ask whether that can be supplied.
Noble Lords have raised many other questions during this debate. How does the Bill ensure that the cared-for person and those representing them have access to the information they need to understand and exercise their rights? Do the Government plan to secure the right of the cared-for person to participate in court proceedings concerning their liberty? Should the modern legislation—this was raised by many noble Lords—include outdated and stigmatising concepts such as unsoundness of mind? The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, is completely correct when she says that the Bournewood gap has not been plugged: I absolutely agree with her remarks on that. Why have the Government not taken forward the Law Commission’s proposals to bring the MCA closer in line with the United Nations CRPD? Why have the Government not chosen to require a written record of serious decisions that can be made under Section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 or introduce stronger procedural safeguards?
Perhaps one of the most significant proposals in the Bill is that care homes assume very significant new responsibilities for the undertaking and co-ordinating of assessments, and provide information about residents who may lack mental capacity to statutory bodies. The very helpful local authority DoLS co-ordinator who has written to several noble Lords says:
“I receive application forms from care homes, train care home staff and give advice about DoLS and MCA issues. Based on these experiences, I have concerns that at present, despite honourable exceptions, care home staff do not routinely have the knowledge and skills to assess mental capacity and consider whether restrictions are proportionate”.
We need to listen to his experience, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Hollins, highlighted. We need to ask what the mandatory training is going to be. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, is completely right: half a day is not sufficient.
Finally, a major recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights is that there must be a statutory definition of what constitutes a deprivation of liberty in this context, but the Bill does not provide such a definition. The Bill team and the Minister have emphasised their consultation process and the organisations that support the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, referred to these. I am sure that is true. However, my inbox, like that of many noble Lords, is full of briefings which have serious concerns about the Bill. Our job in the coming period is to ensure that those are examined. Some clear themes of concern have been mentioned by noble Lords all the way through the debate. The Minister has two choices: either he can engage with the expertise and work with us all to improve the Bill, or he and the Bill team—I hesitate to use the example of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—could dig their heels in and resist change to their small and perfectly formed Bill. I would counsel the former path.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for an incisive, illuminating, at times technically complex but always wise debate, which has been a credit to the House. I will attempt to answer as many questions as I can. I will not try to cover all of them as we actually would be here all night, but I will have time to explore the major categories of issues. I hope noble Lords will indulge me as I do that.
I welcome my noble friend Lady Barran and congratulate her on a very passionate and moving speech. It is clear that she has already been a force for good in the world and we look forward to her bringing her singular qualities to the stage which she now fills with such great authority. I hope noble Lords also noticed the attendance for the first part of the debate of my honourable friend the Minister for Care, Caroline Dinenage, who obviously takes a close interest in this. She was at the briefing and we are working closely together to try to get the right Bill through this process.
I think the general tone of the debate was that there is a strong desire to reform the DoLS system and to end, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, pointed out, the lawlessness and the highly unsatisfactory current situation. My noble friend Lady Barran brought this to life. The truth is that the current system has overwhelmed local authorities and others. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, pointed out, Cheshire West has extended the definition to whom this should apply, such that the backlog of cases is now extraordinary. The only consequence of that is a denial of access to justice. The challenge we have in the Bill is to make sure that we do not have access to justice just in theory but that it actually happens, and it cannot happen if more than 100,000 people are getting it in theory but not in practice.
As somebody who was new to this before preparing for the Bill, the situation almost sounds too good to be true. We are going to extend the number of people who have access to safeguards but we are also going to stop the system being overwhelmed and save money. This is achievable because it is about introducing a proportionate system that reflects the needs and wishes of the people whom it is there to protect, rather than having a maximalist approach that in theory applies to everyone but in reality does not and is sometimes random in its application, which is clearly unacceptable.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, the system that we need to create must be patient-led. It needs to have proper oversight and to deliver that access to justice which we have discussed. Clearly, if, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, only one in 20 have benefited from the current system, it is highly inefficient. As many noble Lords also pointed out, there is a huge urgency here.
Many noble Lords pointed out the benefits of the new system. I will come to some of the challenges but, ultimately, this is about making sure that caring organisations take a more active role in the assessment of deprivation of liberty. Where they do so and integrate it into their care planning, we will provide a proper system of oversight and support for individuals deprived of their liberty in general but, specifically, for those who object, or whose families who care for them object. That is ultimately what we are trying to do and it is the intention of the Bill.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly, Lady Greengross and Lady Thornton, asked about our consultations to date. There have been very wide consultations but this debate has shown that there is much work to be done over the summer, not just with noble Lords but with stakeholder groups, to ensure that we are not only explaining the consequences of what is proposed—I think there are still some misunderstandings about that—but able to demonstrate the benefits and, critically, learn how we can further improve what is proposed.
I turn to some of the issues raised. Several noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker, Lady Finlay, Lady Greengross and Lady Tyler, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, talked about the absence of a statutory definition. I can tell the House that we are aware of that and are listening particularly to the recommendations of the Joint Committee. However, the debate demonstrated some disagreement over the right way forward. There are various options, such as definitions in the Bill or through a code of practice, but we clearly need to get to an answer in order to proceed.
We have talked about wanting a system that has the person’s wishes and best interests at the heart of the process. That was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and endorsed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker, Lady Finlay, Lady Greengross, Lady Meacher, Lady Browning and Lady Hollins. It is absolutely right for us to be clear that there is no watering down of the interests of the individual concerned through this process. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Finlay, pointed out, capacities can fluctuate; as the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning and Lady Hollins, pointed out, they can also be varied—strong in one area and weak in another. Any system needs to take account of that and I can tell the House that it is absolutely not our intention to water down the role of a person’s expressed wishes. The best interest test still applies absolutely in the care setting, but the necessary and proportionate test is to account for those cases where a person may wish to do something regarding their liberties which is contrary to their best interests for their individual care. Striking that balance and making sure that there is proper oversight, with proper advice for people who are unable to enunciate their own wishes, is at the core of getting the Bill right.
As noble Lords have also pointed out, getting the Bill right is actually about getting a statutory code of practice right. It is out of date and there is a degree of urgency about improving it. I will return to that in a moment but, in talking about the statutory definition, I will finish on the power of attorney and the role of families. They still have primacy under the Mental Capacity Act, the principles underpinning which still apply. It will not be possible to deprive a person of liberty when the attorney acting on their behalf has stated that their best interests are served otherwise. I want to make that clear but it is something that we will need to explore and explain better. Attorneys will be part of the group that is to be consulted, and the Bill creates an explicit requirement for further consultation with families. Family members can also act as appropriate persons, so I think there is a greater strengthening of the role of those acting on behalf of a person deprived of their liberty in the process of scrutinising that and making sure that it is done appropriately.
Baroness Barker
If this matter is unclear to some of us who can claim to be fairly well informed on it, clearly, there has been a communication problem. Might I suggest to the noble Lord that it would be enormously helpful—as it has been in similar situations—to have a copy of the Act, as amended by the Bill, for us and interested parties to look at? Believe me, it makes the whole business a great deal clearer and easier to understand.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
That is an excellent suggestion. I should be clear: any confusion comes from a failure to communicate on our behalf, rather than there being any suggestion that noble Lords who are extremely expert on this do not understand what is proposed. There is a need to explain better exactly how all this will work in practice.
Obviously, the system depends on the quality and independence of the reviews, assessments and authorisations that take place; that issue was particularly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. There were also questions asked by the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler, Lady Murphy, Lady Jolly and Lady Thornton, about the capacity of those carrying out assessments in local authority care homes, the NHS and so on to do them properly and in a way compliant with the law. I agree with noble Lords that in the coming weeks we will need to set out much more clearly how that independence support and those assessments will be staffed and provided, making sure that there are sufficient resources and proper training. I am reassured that training in the implications of the Mental Capacity Act is part of medical training, and that there are Health Education England resources for that. Clearly, all that will need to evolve as we go through this process and the Act itself is amended.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Barker, Lady Greengross, Lady Tyler and Lady Murphy, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, asked about the interaction with mental health legislation and whether we should have delayed publication. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, described a tension between the two Acts. We are conscious of the interface—that is the term used—but there is an urgency to reform the system, notwithstanding its interaction with the Mental Health Act. We do not yet have a timescale on completion of the review and any subsequent legislation that might be required. There has been lots of talk about the work to reform—the committee, the Law Commission, the Joint Committee and so on—and we need to get on with this, cognisant all the time that subsequent changes may need to be made once we have the outcome of the Mental Health Act review. It is not in my gift to promise time for legislation in the future but we are cognisant of the need to make sure that our interface works, once we have the review itself completed.
Several noble Lords asked why the Bill does less than the Law Commission. We could spend a lot of time going through that, but I do not propose that we do so at this point. We can achieve non-legislatively several of the Law Commission’s proposals; it is made up of lawyers, so they prefer law but there are other ways of doing things. One of the key issues raised is the Bill’s not applying to 16 and 17 year-olds. There is clearly an important interplay here with the education, health and care plan process, but I have listened to noble Lords on the subject today and shall reflect on whether we can do something about it.
The code of practice was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Greengross, and my noble friends Lady Barran and Lady Browning. Getting it up and running quickly is critical. Detailed work is going on, and we need to be very specific in it to provide reassurance about how it will work. Unfortunately, I do not have a timetable yet for its production, but I will endeavour to get hold of one. We need to make sure that its implementation is properly resourced. The CQC will continue to inspect its implementation, so there will still be that quality oversight.
A few other issues were raised. Many noble Lords referred to “unsound mind” being an unhelpful and, frankly, out-of-date phrase. I do not disagree. The concern here is the interaction with the jurisprudence and the ECHR itself. If we were to move on that—I make no commitment at this point—we would need to think it through very clearly, but I would like to explore it.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Jolly, asked about legal aid. I can confirm that it is, and will still be, available on a means-tested basis. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and my noble friend Lady Browning asked about advance consent—an issue that the Law Commission also raised. Again, there is an important distinction to be made here between an advance decision to refuse treatment, which will continue to be respected and is untouched, and advance consent to a future deprivation of liberty. Although that was in the Law Commission report, officials engaged in the process indicated that this did not receive support from families. There was a concern that you could sign yourself up to being deprived of your liberty at some point in the future, so it did not garner support. Perhaps it was the wrong subset or sample of people; nevertheless, we need to consider the best way forward on that.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about the equality impact assessment. I do not have an answer at this stage about why it was not carried out but I will endeavour to get one.
To conclude, I hope that I have been able to summarise the main issues and topics. Clearly, there are some very big questions that still need to be answered, but I return to the point that my noble friend Lady Browning made, which is that we need to solve the problems this time. We cannot introduce another Bill or piece of legislation that just creates a problem three years down the line. It is not just about the Bournewood gap; it is about making sure that we avoid, and do not create, any other gaps. The words “nightmare” and “disaster” have been used to describe the current system, and that is why we need to act now, but clearly we need to act in such a way that we do not create another problem further down the line.
It has been clear from this debate that there is still much work to be done to provide the right kind of reforms that we all want to see. Looking at the Chief Whip, I am sure that we will have adequate time in Committee to make sure that the Bill is in the best possible shape. We saw a nod of the head from the chief, so that is good. This debate has demonstrated—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said as much—that there is no group of people better qualified to improve this legislation and make sure that we get the right reforms. I look forward to engaging with noble Lords and others throughout the coming months to make sure that we can achieve that and deliver a Bill that provides for people deprived of their liberty the fair and proportionate access to justice that we all want to see.
National Lottery
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to maximise the income from the National Lottery and its use for the arts and good causes.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I was going to start this debate by saying that we are a select group this evening, but I understand that the gap is filling up, which is very welcome. I look forward to hearing everyone’s contributions and, of course, the response from the Minister.
The National Lottery, on its inception by John Major’s Government in 1994, became very quickly a popular national institution and to date has raised over £38 billion for good causes involving 535,000 projects—an achievement, and a continuing achievement, that the British public should be extremely proud of.
At the outset I should like to mention a couple of extraordinary statistics relating to film production which have caught my eye. To date, 14 Oscar winners and 42 BAFTA winners have been significantly funded by the National Lottery, and last year a lottery-funded film, Ken Loach’s “I, Daniel Blake”, won the top prize at Cannes, the Palme d’Or. Nor was this the first lottery-funded film to win a prize at Cannes. These achievements alone illustrate how much the National Lottery has become a truly important feature of our cultural landscape, without even touching on the enormous significance of the lottery for so many areas of the arts, heritage, sport and community projects, about which I am sure we will hear more during the course of this debate.
I believe that this is the right time to have a debate about how we ensure the continuing success of the National Lottery—in other words, to take a health check. I tabled this debate in February, hearing that, after many years of continuing growth, returns from the National Lottery in 2016-17 slipped by 15%. So the question is: is this a temporary blip—and one hopes that it is—or are there other longer term concerns? Whether or not related to that fall, which has this year been slightly reversed, there are key concerns that need addressing, which I will come to. The decline in income led directly to a Public Accounts Committee report with recommendations that was published on 28 March. I understand that in a matter of months the process of awarding the new licence will begin.
Next year will be the 25th anniversary of the National Lottery, so my first question to the Minister is: what plans are there for that celebration? I hope there will be plans for a big celebration including television documentaries on the lottery’s achievements in all the different sectors, with full involvement from all the media, including the BBC which played host to the National Lottery for so many years. This week also happens to be National Lottery in Parliament Week and I hope that, among other events, your Lordships will visit what will be a hugely informative and entertaining display in the Upper Waiting Hall, as well as the reception tomorrow.
There are challenges ahead. A key concern is the threat posed by other potential rivals, in particular the umbrella society lotteries. The arguments for complementarity and competition are separate. If we believe in the prime importance of the National Lottery, and there are many good reasons why we should, it is important that there is clear blue water between the National Lottery and other lotteries, yet that gap is being increasingly narrowed. The Government’s current consultation on lottery reform ends on 7 September this year, and I hope that relevant comments made in this debate will be understood to contribute to that consultation. The Government’s preferred option, which I disagree with, is to increase quite substantially the sales and prize limits from limits which were previously set to try to ensure that the National Lottery was not affected.
What the Government ignore in the consultation is the impact on the National Lottery of an increasingly closely perceived association within the marketplace between the National Lottery and the umbrella society lotteries that, to a certain extent, already exist. As Camelot’s excellent briefing tells us, in 2010 the National Lottery represented 85% of lottery advertising, yet, worryingly, by 2017 this had been reduced to 45%. Camelot says that it cannot be correct that these industrial-scale umbrella society lotteries with combined sales of around £370 million are spending more on advertising than the National Lottery with sales of £6.952 billion. Camelot argues that an expenses cap for these lotteries needs to be reintroduced and it recommends that it is set at 15%, the limit that existed before the Gambling Act 2005.
When I walk into my local Tesco Express, I see, away from the main counter, side-by-side the National Lottery stand holding the forms for selecting your own draw numbers and the Health Lottery stand. Not only does the Health Lottery stand mimic the style of the National Lottery, it has emblazoned on it the advertising, “Only £1. That’s half the price of Lotto”, the clearest evidence that the Health Lottery sets itself up as an aggressive rival to the National Lottery. This is wholly unacceptable. It would be fair to say that businessman Richard Desmond has an understanding of how this type of competition works. One only has to think of how he launched OK! magazine as a rival to the established Hello! magazine using a very similar visual design to clever effect.
The effect of this and other advertising, such as the presence the People’s Postcode Lottery now has in television advertising, is surely inevitably not only to risk money being taken away from the National Lottery but to muddy the waters between them. Although it is good that the main television promotion of the National Lottery has returned to Saturday night TV at prime time, it is on ITV within an ad break, which means that it is disallowed as an advertised programme. At the very least there is the danger that the public start to see the umbrella society lotteries as equivalent to the National Lottery. There are some, I am sure, who will even perceive the Lotto and Health Lottery stands I have referred to as being part of the same operation when we should be doing everything possible to maintain the National Lottery’s distinctiveness.
This brings me to a second, related concern. It is one of the recommendations of the PAC report that,
“Camelot should work with the Lottery Distributors to better publicise the link between good causes and the Lottery and communicate the contribution to good causes … at the point of sale”.
I strongly agree. One of the things that really needs to be done is to reconnect the public with the original reasons for setting up the lottery in the first place, and of course the 25th anniversary next year is a perfect opportunity to do so. Although many now play and check the results online, 75% of the public still play through retail outlets. Camelot has rightly increased participating retailers from 28,000 in 2011 to 46,000 today, and has plans to extend into other supermarket brands. At present the public get little idea of the good causes currently represented at these sales points other than, for instance, being directed to the National Lottery website among other text on the back of scratchcards.
Certainly much more can be done to clearly and boldly publicise individual projects, and in particular projects that are local to the retail outlets. Just as an example, I am sure that shoppers at my local supermarket would love to know that their contributions, and indeed local winners’ contributions, have been used to fund the wonderful Mary Rose Museum in Portsmouth, where it is natural for me to take friends and family who visit me in Hampshire. To this end, I suggest to the Minister, in consideration of a closer liaison between the operator and the distributors, that Camelot’s National Lottery website and the Good Causes website could be usefully amalgamated, with good causes themselves being easier to identify by both sector and local area.
To be fair, Camelot itself has been very aware of these concerns. Perhaps more can be done internally to make the operation more effective but the Government should listen carefully to what Camelot has to say, not as another self-interested lottery operator but as having been the guardian of the National Lottery for 24 years, with all the experience that that has entailed and a successful record of running it. It should be noted, too, that the original “crossed fingers and smiley face” logo continues to be recognised by 95% of the public, and that in itself is an achievement. Something that the Government have got right is the closing this year of the loophole that allowed other lottery operators to offer bets on EuroMillions, which we are very grateful for.
The particular concern over the 15% drop has been in part because the distributors need to have the confidence that the income from the National Lottery will be reliable over a number of years. This affects long-term projects in particular. The Heritage Lottery Fund tells me that very few projects have been dropped after the initial delivery grant following a process that supports the best quality of projects in as geographically comprehensive a manner as possible, but uncertainties over the year-to-year reliability of funding will quite quickly affect the decision-making over what projects can be safely sustained. Someone working in this area said to me last week that if we are not careful we may find ourselves sleepwalking into a position of no return. The Government have to decide whether they want to allow increasingly unfettered competition or to properly and unequivocally support a much-loved institution that also happens to be a precious national asset. I hope the Government will opt for the latter and that, as a consequence, the National Lottery will continue to go from strength to strength.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow such an excellent, comprehensive and forensic speech. I congratulate the noble Earl on securing this timely debate. We have the PAC report and in the past few weeks we have had the Government’s response to it—and of course we have the Government’s own review of society lotteries. All that makes for an opportunity to raise some fundamental questions about whether we can expect the same sort of success from lotteries in the future as we have had in the past.
I have to declare an interest as the deputy chair of the Heritage Lottery Fund and chair of the Heritage Lottery Fund in Wales. Like other distributors, we are responding to the implications of meeting increasing demand with falling resources in the past year. We are trying to bring as much creativity and foresight as we can muster, and I am grateful to the noble Earl for referencing that.
Since 1994 the HLF really has exceeded the best expectations in securing and revealing our heritage. In doing so it has, uniquely, worked across the four countries of the UK. I have often spoken in this House about the great value of our heritage of language, landscape and historic environment. It is a treasure that continues to grow year on year in terms of our economic prosperity, particularly in areas such as Wales, but it also contributes uniquely to the resilience of our communities, to a sense of belonging, to pride, to identity and to continuity. It is beyond praise.
Understanding that is the first step to understanding how to put it to work in the best sense in future. It is important to set out the scale, as the noble Earl did: £38 billion has been invested in the National Lottery. The Heritage Lottery Fund’s role has been to distribute £7.7 billion, which has been invested in more than 42,000 projects. I could spend the rest of the evening describing just some of them. It is very difficult to choose which.
Wherever you look—whether it is the extraordinary vitality of our global museums in London; whether it is the small, remote cottage of Hedd Wyn in the mountains of Snowdonia, a sadly deceased poet who died during the First World War before he learned that he had won the bardic poem in the National Eisteddfod in 1917; whether it is saving the very awkward capercaillie bird in Scotland, which seems to have a death wish for all sorts of different reasons; or whether it is saving a great painting or a lost park—all these things make up the pleasure and pride of communities. I pay tribute to all those people who, over those 25 years, have worked so efficiently to do such a great job.
But it has depended on the continuing success of the National Lottery itself. Until 2012 we could take that for granted, but the first recommendation of the PAC report pointed to the fact that, since the renegotiation of the contract in 2012, Camelot’s profits have gone up but the returns to good causes have gone down by 15%. Significantly, the Government agree with most of the PAC’s prescriptions for change. Put simply, fewer people are playing the lottery. We need to know why. The noble Lord has talked about society lotteries, but I shall not pursue that because he gave such a good account of it.
Other possible issues include the change in the price of the tickets, the changing nature of the games themselves or the fact that the lottery brand is now rather too familiar. The Government have said that they are looking at a range of strategic changes and the validity of expectations that are held of them. The review will conclude in the autumn, and we look forward to that. The Camelot briefing for tonight, which was very helpful, set out the four areas in which it is focused on driving change: an improved range of games, an enhanced retail offering, updated digital capability and a reinvigorated brand. All that needs to happen.
My question to the Minister is: what will be the test for success for Camelot? It is encouraging that it is addressing decline, but do the Government really think that the proposals will make a fundamental difference? What else might the Government invite Camelot to consider? In particular, when there is such an increase in online gambling, is there not a case for a review of the impact of online gambling on the lottery? Has the Gambling Commission done any research or made any estimates about that relationship?
I know that we will get a thoughtful response from the Minister. We have had a marvellous Minister in Tracey Crouch and I am sure that the new Secretary of State has the licence renewal at the top of his very full in-tray. The Government need to get a grip on this. Things are changing. Brexit will bring the loss of structural funds which support the transformation of town centres, and it will cut our environmental funds, which help conserve rare species. Local authorities are no longer the active leaders that we wanted them to be: they are under the cosh. The whole funding environment is hugely, intensively competitive. Year on year, we in HLF know that, without our funds and without the extraordinary efforts of the voluntary and statutory sectors, our heritage will be at greater and greater risk.
That certainly makes for greater uncertainty for all the National Lottery distributors. It makes planning securely very hard. We have to keep income, reserves and commitments in line. It is becoming very difficult to do that. One of the most important recommendations in the PAC report concerns the difficulty of getting access to the information we need to manage forward programmes. So it is vital in this context that we get timely projections of income for returns to good causes, and that those projections are shared between the department, the regulator and the operator.
While the PAC and the Government, rather unusually in this report, pay tribute to the unsung heroes in the shape of finance directors, they cannot plan wisely or fairly unless they can rely on forward projections. For example, while there were improvements in income towards the end of 2017, which is acknowledged by the operator, they have fallen back since the beginning of this financial year—so we need action now. For some time now, all the distributors have been dealing with the challenge of irregular or infrequent forecasts. There was some improvement towards the end of last year, but there is still no agreed understanding of their income for this year or over the next few years, despite being over one-quarter of the way through the financial year. May I press the Minister to ensure that this work is done speedily and effectively to allow for sensible planning and distribution of funds to applicants for grants? These are people who may have spent years and, indeed, hundreds of thousands of pounds in putting in their application in which they have invested such hope and expectation. We owe it to them to be able to plan securely.
It is also important, as the Minister will appreciate, that the Government take advantage of what the lottery distributors already know in their expertise. They have built up a considerable level of experience on risk and projection but, for some reason, the department still declines to share the weekly sales data that DCMS holds. I do not understand this. I urge the Minister to take the message back to DCMS. To share the data would allow a more collaborative effort to identify trends and risks; it would avoid serious issues downstream. I would also really like to hear from the Minister that the Government and the Gambling Commission are going to focus on very strong competition for the next licence, including examining the structure of incentivisation within the licence, caps on marketing and the impact of the National Lottery levy on the operator. We need the best outcome.
I would also like to hear the Minister urge Camelot to intensify the good work that it has done already in trying to address some of these problems. It needs to do more. The 70th anniversary of the NHS is one obvious thing that Camelot should focus on and celebrate. It is trying very hard—and we have already heard about the opportunities that will be presented in the 25th anniversary year—but there is still much to be done. The noble Earl was quite right: we all want people who play the lottery to know more and enjoy more of what it means for good causes. Our own research at HLF has recently confirmed that people positively want us to fund projects with a social purpose, including in particular projects that deliver skills and training to young people.
We would love to tell more stories about the human impacts and the change that has been brought about in all corners of the UK. In Wales, for example, recent townscape heritage grants to Blaenavon and Newport will lift confidence and enterprise, as surely as they will lift community spirits. As for sharing the good news for lottery players, a start was made. Last December, the “Thank You” promotion meant that over 400 National Lottery-funded attractions offered special events or opened their doors free to members if they bought a lottery ticket with them—a simple idea and a wonderful success. We want more of that. Lately, we have funded some wonderful projects, such as Jodrell Bank, the NHS at 70, Gainsborough’s House and Lake Vyrnwy in Wales. These are the sorts of things that we really want to go on doing to the best of our ability. None of that would have happened without the National Lottery. The demand is relentless. It behoves the Government really to get a grip on the situation and attack the detail of the funding.
Lord Beith (LD)
I intervene briefly in this debate, so well introduced by the noble Earl, with whose key points I very much agree. I also very much agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who has done so much work in this area. In intervening, I declare my interest as president of the Historic Chapels Trust and the North of England Civic Trust, both of which have been able to save distinguished buildings and make them available for wider community use, thanks to the Heritage Lottery Fund. I am also chair of the heritage committee of the Methodist Church.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said, we are in a very difficult funding environment with severe constraints on all the other key sources of funds for this kind of work, especially Historic England—in passing I must pay tribute to the help that it is giving the Historic Chapels Trust to seek a good administrative basis by working with the Churches Conservation Trust. Funding from local authorities is now under the most severe pressure and rarely available. As the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, indicated, European funding streams are threatened. This leaves the Heritage Lottery Fund expected to do much of the heavy lifting of capital funding with much reduced resources.
It also raises the question of what happened to the concept of additionality and the view that was very strongly expressed when the lottery was introduced. It was going to enable us to do things which public funding could not normally finance. It has done many of those things, but it has crept increasingly into the gap left by the withdrawal of traditional public funding, particularly in local government care for the main buildings of a community. There is the added problem—this is not a criticism—that the policy objectives of HLF involve wider community use. This is quite understandable but it can limit the kind of project that can be undertaken at a time when it is virtually the only funder still on the scene. This poses a risk to some buildings and artefacts of exceptional aesthetic importance which are limited in their potential for wider community use and involvement.
Most of the time, there is no real conflict between the preservation and restoration of landmark buildings and the promotion of healthy communities. People attach enormous value to the buildings and places that have mattered in their lives and those of their ancestors, and which tell the story of their community. A community that loses its landmark buildings has its sense of deprivation further increased. We see that very much in some areas where the loss of buildings has been great and there is also significant deprivation.
It has been my privilege to support, and see the results of, great projects part-funded by the lottery. It is a moving experience to see the joy on people’s faces when buildings they thought they were going to lose are now available to them to use. This is cultural capital, wisely used. I recognise some of the issues raised by the noble Earl, but it cannot be left entirely to the lottery to fund things that matter in our society and are of beauty and quality. It has developed a valued role, but there are responsibilities that still rest with the Government and agencies such as DCMS, Historic England and others. They should take their share and be enabled to do so by public funding.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. I approve of my noble friend Lord Clancarty’s debate and of what he is trying to achieve. However, it is important to sound one note of caution. It is easy to be congratulatory, but we should remember that this is about gambling, about which I have certain reservations. I have seen impoverished families spending far too much on tickets. That said, nobody is forced to buy a ticket. I buy one quite often, not because I really think I am going to win—although, like everyone, I enjoy the dream—but because I know that the money is going to some of the causes about which the House has heard.
As I go round the country and visit many arts centres, libraries and concert halls, I have been struck and impressed by developments which would not have happened without assistance from the Heritage Lottery Fund. In particular, I would be grateful if the Minister could address an important issue which has not been mentioned thus far: the extension of disabled access. Libraries, cathedrals, concert halls—sports grounds even—have a series of ramps that enable people to enjoy these great beauties, which they would not otherwise be able to do. We must remember that this money comes from all of us, so the whole of the general public should be able to benefit. That must include those less fortunate, either through circumstances or disability. That is a real achievement and I congratulate everyone involved in it.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I too declare an interest, as a former trustee of the National Gallery, and I now help a wonderful museum in Glasgow called the Burrell Collection, which is in receipt of generous support from the Heritage Lottery Fund. Quite right too—it is marvellous.
I am a huge supporter of the Heritage Lottery Fund, particularly now that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said, it has spread its largesse. At the beginning it was maybe a little too fixated on metropolitan good causes, but now one sees good being done right across the country, and these days the selection processes are done extremely professionally. I am therefore a huge supporter. I am less of a supporter of the lottery. I am uneasy about this tax, which is the most regressive tax in the United Kingdom. It is regressive in the way it is collected, because not many high-income households buy lottery tickets, and in the way it is spent. That can be exaggerated, but the point is that not many low-income households go to Covent Garden. There is a potential problem here: the combination is a little perverse. The lottery takes money from people who are least able to afford it and spends a fair amount of it on the entertainments of those who could certainly afford them themselves.
I cannot help thinking that voluntary donations to the HLF, collected by HMRC through the tax system, would be a more satisfactory way of supporting the Heritage Lottery Fund and extremely good causes. If one financed it that way, it seems that it would be possible for the HLF to come into the scope of gift aid. It might also attract the attention of the Carnegies and Rockefellers of our day, as it clearly does good across the same sort of range of good causes that Andrew Carnegie supported in his time. Therefore, mine is a slightly cautionary note—the same note that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, struck. I cannot believe that it would be a wholly unalloyed good to have an all-out campaign to sell more lottery tickets, but to ensure that the HLF has more money to use would be an unalloyed good.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, it is becoming a bit of a lottery to know who will speak next. I congratulate the noble Earl on securing this debate, and I agreed very much on the various points he raised. I am delighted that I am following the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who, as my noble friend pointed out, has done so much in the field of heritage in this country. I hope that while the Minister will take account of everything the noble Baroness said, he will pay particular attention to her proposal that there be a proper review of the impact of online gambling on the National Lottery.
I congratulate all three noble Lords who jumped in to speak briefly. My noble friend Lord Beith is absolutely right to remind the Government that they must not rely on the lottery as the provider of many of the good things that we want to see in this country. I take entirely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the wonderful work that is done, particularly by the Heritage Lottery Fund. He referred also to taking into account the needs of a wide range of people, including, for instance, disabled access. I hear entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, says. He spoke eloquently in support of many of the good things that have happened but then raised concerns about the way in which the money is raised, and he has properly come up with an alternative. I confess that I suspect his alternative would not bring in anything like the sums of money needed to achieve the wide range of projects.
At its inception in 1994, my party opposed the National Lottery, but we were clearly very wrong. As the noble Earl rightly pointed out, it has brought in something like £38 billion and helped over half a million projects. He did not point out that it has also brought around £15 billion into the Exchequer’s coffers. However, I do not want to use what limited time I have got extolling the National Lottery. Rather, I want to raise a few areas where I think improvements could be made that would bring in even more money for good causes.
In doing that, I am conscious that reports such as the NAO report last December, the PAC report in April this year and the recent review carried out by the new CEO of Camelot have already led to some improvements beginning to being made. These include, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said, an improvement in the range of games, more investment in outlets and upgrading the digital capacity. However, there are four areas in which work could still be done: additionality; umbrella lotteries, which have already been raised; taxation; and promotion of the lottery.
Your Lordships’ House will be well aware that it was John Major who established the principle of additionality: that National Lottery money should add to but not substitute for government expenditure. Sadly, this principle has not always been followed. Indeed, during the Blair years, the creator of the National Lottery, John Major, was highly critical of what Labour was doing, saying that,
“since it took power, Labour has diverted Lottery funding into areas that have historically been funded by the Exchequer”.
He went on to accuse Labour of,
“muddying … the waters between Exchequer and Lottery revenues”.
Interestingly, almost immediately after John Major criticised the Labour Party, the Conservative manifesto proposed a Club2School scheme to be funded from the National Lottery, along with a number of other schemes such as a school leavers programme. All three parties have been guilty of this. For instance, all three, with varying degrees of reservation, accepted the need for National Lottery funding to be made available to support the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The principles have of course been developed further: it is not just additionality now—we also talk about complementarity.
My point, however, is simple. Whatever the principles, there should be clear evidence that they are being adhered to; otherwise, money will leach out into things that the Government themselves should definitely be funding. I have always believed that the reports from lottery distributors should state precisely how they have met the additionality and complementarity principles. I argued for this as far back as 2005. However, over the weekend, I was reading the Big Lottery Fund’s annual report for this year, and all I found, on page 47, were the simple words that all the awards made in 2016-17 were “consistent with the principles”. There was no explanation of how that was done. Can the Minister explain what independent evaluation takes place to ensure that lottery funding meets the principles? Is he satisfied with the monitoring that takes place?
As other have already done, I want to touch on so-called umbrella lotteries. I recognise that, in recent times, action has been taken on lottery-style games being run by gambling operators, but it has taken since 2005, when that issue was first raised, for action to be taken. Also in 2005, I first raised the issue of umbrella lotteries. I pointed out that the online lottery, Monday, appeared to be offering a prize of £1 million, yet the then maximum prize allowed for a society lottery was £200,000. To achieve that £1 million prize, Monday brought together five so-called society lotteries that were not paying any tax. That was established in competition to the National Lottery.
Since then, we have seen the growth of these huge umbrella-type lotteries, particularly the People’s Postcode Lottery and the Health Lottery, which have been mentioned, which give less money to good causes and do not pay taxation in the same way. In fact, the Health Lottery returns only the minimum of 20% to good causes, paying no tax. They have a huge promotional budget—we have heard about the sort of tricks they get up to—far larger than for the National Lottery. They distort the lottery market and undermine the original intention that there should be a single, national lottery, and they reduce funds to good causes.
I first formally raised this issue with the then Secretary of State in 2006. I tried again in 2011 with the new Secretary of State, now the Foreign Secretary, and I am now taking my chance with the Minister. The Government’s current review of society lotteries provides an ideal opportunity at long last to address this particular issue, so can the Minister explain what action is being considered in relation to umbrella lotteries, whether the Government will reconsider a limit, say of 15% as has been proposed, on the level of expenses allowable to society lotteries, and what impact the Government believe the proposed increase in the maximum society lottery prize to £500,000 will have on returns for good causes? Surely, as research shows, increasing the jackpot still further encourages more participation in the umbrella lotteries and less in the National Lottery.
The umbrella lotteries have an additional advantage over the National Lottery. They do not pay lottery duty. So I turn briefly to taxation. As noble Lords will know, the National Lottery pays 12% lottery duty, which places it at a considerable disadvantage to the umbrella lotteries, and to gambling and gaming operators which provide far less to society. For many years, Camelot has argued for a change to a gross profits tax regime, arguing that it would give it greater flexibility to respond to the new market forces. Some 11 years ago, in the other place, the DCMS Committee looked at this matter and saw then that a change to GPT would add £50 million a year to good causes and additional money into the Exchequer. I know that discussions are under way, and I hope that the Minister can update us on this issue. I also hope that he will accept that it is important that this is resolved before we begin the discussions about the new competition for the next round of the National Lottery licence.
Finally, reference has been made to the issue of promotion. Public understanding of the good causes to which National Lottery funding goes is nowhere near as powerful an incentive to participate as the possibility of winning life-changing sums of money—I fully understand that. But it does still matter. This year, the PAC pointed out:
“We are concerned that awareness of the National Lottery’s support for good causes has fallen, and that this is likely to have contributed to reduced participation”.
More should be done to make communities aware of the benefits that the National Lottery has brought them. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, pointed out, the 25th anniversary provides a particularly good opportunity to do that.
I live close to the sunken city of Dunwich in Suffolk. It has an excellent museum explaining how the sea has transformed a once-thriving city and port into a tiny hamlet. The museum boasts a sign saying, “Supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund”. I suspect that few people who visit that excellent museum are aware that the funding actually came from the National Lottery, so I welcome the news that Camelot, the National Lottery promotions unit and the lottery distributors are working together to,
“make The National Lottery and its purpose far more relevant and visible”.
That is vital. But I am especially pleased they will now start talking about a single, clear brand name:“One National Lottery”. I hope that the Minister will be able to update us on progress in that area. I hope that he will also acknowledge that unless action is taken in relation to the huge promotional budgets of the umbrella lotteries, all of that effort may well go to waste.
The National Lottery has been and continues to be a huge success story, transforming lives and communities. Ensuring that it continues to do so in the future means that the issues that I and others have raised certainly need to be addressed. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for being as ever a watchdog in this area. He registered his intention to have this debate in February. It is a bit of a pity that it is happening today rather than tomorrow, because some of the results of the Question we are discussing about the outcomes of the National Lottery will be on display elsewhere in the building. We could have lavishly referred to all of that and thus made our case without having to speak about it. There is no doubt that, in terms of the good causes that are supported by the National Lottery, the whole face of our country has been changed, so the object of this debate is to ensure that we do not lose momentum. The expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, speaks for itself.
I have some personal experience of the operation of the lottery. I was the president of the Methodist Conference in 1994 when the National Lottery was established. We have done fire and brimstone about gambling for quite a long time and I think it was expected that I would unleash my Welsh oratory to good effect as I denounced the incoming activity called the National Lottery—and indeed, since I love fire and brimstone, I was very tempted. But I had talked to people and become aware that the lottery was something very much in line with what the public wanted. I remember appearing on a television programme presented by my noble friend Lady Bakewell on this very subject. I limited myself to two areas of serious concern.
One has been mentioned adequately by several contributors to the debate; namely, that we hoped that the income raised would not be at the expense of government expenditure but in addition to it. That was one of the strong points that it seemed appropriate to make. The other point I wanted to make in those days was that it is well attested that gambling as an activity creates problems among a certain percentage of those who indulge in it. There have been many sociological studies and while the percentages vary—I have seen 6% and 12%—let us acknowledge that problems are going to be created. Why should the National Health Service pick up the tab for dealing with problem gamblers? Should there not therefore be a levy on all those involved in the gambling industry which could be given to the NHS to help it cope with the problems?
Having said all that, the Museum of Methodism on City Road whose refurbishment I oversaw benefited enormously from the Heritage Lottery Fund. It is quite right to say that we should get clearer branding on all this so that we know that it is one single entity that provides these moneys. So the chickens have come home to roost as far as Methodism is concerned—but let it be said that of the £2.5 million we spent, £2.25 million was raised elsewhere, with £250,000 from the Heritage Lottery Fund.
On the other hand, at the moment I am struggling with someone to try to raise money for a project to encourage black opera singers to find their way in the high culture world of opera. Of course, it does not have the right cachet and does not meet the criteria, but it is a worthy cause that would widen the pool of brilliance available to us so that when Covent Garden does benefit from the Heritage Lottery Fund, we could have a few performers inside who have also benefited from it—and why not? So tomorrow I shall be down on the Terrace looking at all the wonderful things that have been done with this fund.
Camelot has written a briefing paper, which I—and other noble Lords, as I understand from the speeches so far—have read. It was a nice bit of common reading for us. Camelot recognises the very problems that we are discussing and has had an important set of meetings to evolve a strategy for the immediate future, knowing that there has been some staleness in the way things have been working and that financial returns have not been as good. Its four objectives, which were referred to by my noble friend Lady Andrews and others, include an improved range of products. Who am I to talk about EuroMillions, Lotto and Thunderball with any authority? But they do represent a widening of the variety of products.
Over the years, I have discovered that even something as fresh as a daisy today will be a wilted bloom tomorrow. Keeping things fresh and renewed is a very important part of the exercise. People are familiar with the National Lottery now. They are no longer thrilled by it. I remember “It could be you”. Do we not all remember that? All I can say is that I always bought my tickets—by proxy, of course: I am a Methodist minister and you have to be very careful about these thing—but it was never me and has not been thus far. For all that, I remember the thrill of the beginnings of National Lottery very well. I wish the Camelot operation well as it seeks to continue to refresh the product and give it continuing bite on the public mind, as it were. We have talked about the brand. I asked the Camelot members to whom I spoke about its retail activity and broadening its presence in the retail world. When high street shops are all shutting, is that necessarily where it ought to be? But they persuaded me that there are ways in which they can cope with all that.
The question of a balance between the National Lottery and society lotteries has been amply referred to. I have also spoken to people from society lotteries—at least, from one or two of the ones that we can cope with, I should say. There is a way of gathering things together under an umbrella and finding ways to avoid paying tax through loopholes and shortcuts. It is incumbent on the Government to look at that. It has been referred to again and again over the years. I trust that the Minister will assure us that the time has come to take this in hand.
I know that we have an ongoing consultation. I know that Camelot has set strategic objectives. Therefore, it seems that we are on the wrong side of things that are about to happen and which we cannot yet evaluate. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, will put down his name now for another debate in November, when we can see the results of the consultation exercise and how the impact of Camelot’s strategic goals is working out. There has to be a balance of some kind between the National Lottery and local expressions of a lottery. If the balance is right, they can be complementary, but it will need the wisdom of Solomon. I look to the Minister; my conversations with him have suggested Solomonic qualities in his character, so let us hope that it all works out well.
Finally, we had a debate on fixed-odds betting terminals. With a sigh of collective relief on all sides of the House, we welcomed the fact that the Government seemed committed to taking a £2 stake as the norm, rather than something between £2 and £100. Then we were all disconsolate because of the time it is taking to implement that decision. None of guessed in that debate that it would be so intricate. I remember the Minister’s colleague trying to explain the critical path to implementing what we had all decided was a very good thing. So let us remind ourselves that we have recognised the problematic nature of betting on lotteries and decided to stop it. I hope that it will not be as intricate to deal with what we have decided in this instance as it has been in the other.
Well: gambling. A Methodist minister at the Dispatch Box going on about getting a wholesome approach to all these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, a friend of mine, talked about those projects where the money applied led to the widening of access to the project that was being refurbished. I cannot see why, if that works for a chapel of the north of England, it cannot work for the Covent Garden opera house, which also ought to have its access widened so that little old ladies with Zimmer frames can go in and listen to the treasures of music as much as anybody else.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I do not know about Solomonic characteristics, but I am pleased to respond to this debate. I sincerely thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for raising a discussion on the National Lottery at this pivotal point in its history. We have nearly succeeded today in having as many or more speakers in the gap than those who put their names down to speak in the first place, such is the noble Earl’s popularity. As he said, we stand on the cusp of the National Lottery’s 25th anniversary year and work has begun to consider the shape of the National Lottery when the current licence expires in 2023.
I start by addressing a question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Foster, about the importance of the relationship between online gambling and the National Lottery, and the link to the next bidding round. It is an important issue and it will certainly be considered by DCMS and the Gambling Commission as we consider the design of the next licence.
Before we get into the details, I will set the scene. We believe, as some noble Lords have said, that the National Lottery has been an undeniable triumph since it was launched by Sir John Major in 1994 with the objective to raise money to enhance the sports, arts, heritage and charity sectors in this country. It is easy to forget that the lottery also raised funds to help us mark the millennium. Its performance has far outstripped the initial expectations of £1 billion for good causes per year. In fact, more than £38 billion has been raised over the National Lottery’s 24-year lifetime, as was mentioned. This has meant that more than 500,000 good cause grants have been awarded across the whole of the UK. Every single local authority has benefited by an average of more than 1,200 awards.
So many individuals and organisations have benefited. I will select just a few to mention here. The National Lottery has supported the small and seemingly simple, yet very important, such as funding the travel costs to allow World War II veterans who would otherwise not be able to attend to take part in commemorative visits. It has allowed the United Kingdom to excel increasingly at the Olympic and Paralympic Games; supported more than 42,000 heritage projects, including the restoration of more than 19,000 historic buildings and monuments; and of course, as the noble Earl so eloquently mentioned, funded the overarching gamut of art and culture, inspiring and uniting us.
So, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said, it is vital that the National Lottery continues to thrive, but equally we must acknowledge that this relies on people continuing to buy tickets. As the noble Earl said, while ticket sales, and thus amounts generated for good causes, naturally fluctuate year on year, there have been undeniable challenges recently. Recent years have seen lower levels of good cause income than we might have hoped for. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, might be right that there is, as he put it, a certain staleness in it. However, the sums raised are still not insignificant—namely £1.6 billion in 2017-18.
But let me be clear: we are concerned about the fall in income. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, raised some points about this. We understand the difficulties this drop in income means for distributors. The Gambling Commission has provided detailed econometric modelling of future national lottery returns to distributors. That modelling was last shared in March this year. She also raised a linked point about the sharing of data by the department, but I reassure her that DCMS is also working with the Gambling Commission to ensure that distributors have all the information they need to plan ahead—it is an important point.
So, what are the Government doing about this? As soon as the income drop became apparent in 2016, the Government engaged immediately with the lottery distributors, with the Gambling Commission, which regulates the National Lottery, and with Camelot, the National Lottery operator, to agree a series of remedial actions designed to return the National Lottery to its strongest possible position. This remains work in progress. Returns to good causes appear to have stabilised in the 2017-18 financial year, following the 15% drop in 2016-17, but the Government know that there is more to do and we continue to drive this strategy actively. Last year, Camelot undertook a thorough strategic review of its business and has brought in a wide range of measures to improve results. This has already seen the return to television of the National Lottery draw results and the introduction of additional games. Further measures are in the pipeline to reinvigorate and extend the portfolio, with new products such as an annuity-based game, allowing winners to receive a monthly prize over a long period. Further details will be forthcoming on this.
Lottery distributors themselves are also working with Camelot to improve the public’s perception of the National Lottery and ensure that players are aware of the good causes they are supporting. Some valuable points were made on this by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who was particularly concerned—this was a clear focus of his speech. Events, such as the Heritage Lottery Fund’s “Thanks to You” campaign last December, are building an association between the sale of lottery tickets and the local good cause projects that these tickets ultimately fund. I deliberately use the word “local” because lottery funding has reached all corners of the country. In addition to successful film-making, which was mentioned this evening, and saving the capercaillie, which, as a Scotsman, brought a smile to my face, the lottery funds allotments in Angus, pottery in Port Talbot, theatre in Thurrock, bell-ringing in Belfast, wildlife in Westminster and cricket in Rugby.
The noble Lord, Lord Beith, spoke about the importance of funding our historic buildings through the Heritage Lottery Fund and he is right. I also echo the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the lottery providing important funds for heritage. In the last financial year the Heritage Lottery Fund provided £20 million for places of worship and has ensured that the same proportion will be spent this year, so the breadth is pretty wide.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, voiced concerns that society lotteries, such as the Health Lottery or the People’s Postcode Lottery, pose an increasing threat to the National Lottery’s monopoly position—this addresses the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Griffiths, as well as the noble Earl, about so-called umbrella lotteries. I reassure the House that we continue to look at this issue very carefully and have taken expert advice from the Gambling Commission. The noble Earl may be surprised to hear that current evidence suggests that while players see the two types of lottery as distinct, there is little danger of product substitution. The evidence shows that players are drawn to the National Lottery because of its life-changing prizes and the ability to support a broad range of causes, while they often play society lotteries to directly support a specific charity or cause.
However, to help ensure that this distinction is maintained—as the noble Earl said, this is important—this year the Gambling Commission introduced stricter requirements for branded society lotteries, such as the Health Lottery, to be clear with players about the cause that each draw is being held to support. Society lotteries are now also required to make players aware of how much of what they raise goes to good causes. The Government value the place of society lotteries in raising money for charities and good causes—more than £250 million last year, supporting causes such as the Royal British Legion, the RNLI, and air ambulances across the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, made the point that there is a balance to be struck between national and local, and the Government remain committed to ensuring that both society lotteries and the National Lottery are able to thrive side by side; indeed, we have heard from many organisations that receive valuable funding from both.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
I think we were worried about the level playing field in terms of taxation and conditions for operating and so on. I wonder if there is an answer to some of those concerns.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Indeed. Some points have been raised on that issue and I will come to it later, but if I do not manage to address it, I will certainly write to the noble Lord.
The recently launched consultation, which has been mentioned today, outlines measures aimed at finding the right balance between enabling the sustainable growth of society lotteries while protecting the National Lottery’s unique position. I invite noble Lords with an interest to engage with the consultation before its closing date of early September. I echo the noble Earl in saying that we welcome all views on this matter. The noble Earl raised some important points about the contributions and this debate will be taken account of in the consultation.
In conclusion on the matter of falling sales, we believe that Camelot’s revised strategy will go a long way to address this issue, supported by the distributors and, of course, DCMS.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, spoke about disabled access. He made an important point that all areas of visitation must have the correct disabled access. The point has been noted.
As has been mentioned, we will be celebrating the 25th anniversary of the National Lottery in a little over a year’s time. Work is under way to ensure that we make the most of this opportunity to further showcase the National Lottery’s singular ability to deliver life-changing outcomes, both in the awards it makes to good causes and in the value of prizes that can be won by lottery players. To reassure the noble Earl, the Government are looking forward to celebrating this important anniversary. Working together with Camelot and the distributors, we will make everybody aware of what this great institution has made possible over the past 25 years. Detailed plans are being advanced and further details will be announced in due course.
The National Lottery has had an unparalleled impact on 21st-century Britain. Across the country the lottery is not just well known but has a recognised brand name, as the noble Earl said. This is not surprising if you stop to consider that the majority of National Lottery money goes straight to the heart of our communities, locally and nationally. Some 71% of the grants made are for £10,000 or less; in other words, small amounts of money going to community-led projects that make a big impact. Less than 1% of the grants awarded exceed £1 million.
Furthermore, as the noble Earl said, this week is National Lottery in Parliament week. As the noble Earl did, I encourage noble Lords to visit the Upper Waiting Hall, where one can learn more about the Lottery and its history, and participate in a range of competitive activities—to keep noble Lords on their toes before we break up for the Summer Recess.
More seriously, we must ensure that we retain the warmth of public sentiment for the National Lottery among existing players and attract new participants. It is critical to ensuring that income is maximised to continue delivering awards across the breadth of this country and to the widest array of good causes. There are some questions that I still have to answer and I will write to all noble Lords. Noble Lords can be assured that this is a clear imperative of the Government and is a core objective in the department’s single departmental plan—
Lord Foster of Bath
I think there is some confusion in your Lordships’ House. I will read the Minister a quote from the Gambling Commission, which said:
“The relatively low prizes and generally limited distribution footprint are key factors that have traditionally differentiated”,
the society lottery sector from the National Lottery. Do the Government still believe that that distinction should be maintained?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That is a question that should be put to the consultation. This debate will allow these sorts of questions to be put to the consultation. I reassure the noble Lord that that will be taken into account.
To conclude, we hope to see the National Lottery continue to flourish, both now and for the next 25 years.