House of Commons
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
The Department is working closely with the Treasury to look at spending on 16-19 education ahead of the 2019 spending review. We are also looking at the resilience and efficiency of the further education sector to make sure it is sustainable and continues to give the excellent education it already does.
Thelma Walker
What advice would the Minister give to the 50% of schools and colleges that have already cut modern foreign language courses and the 67% that have already cut additional support and extracurricular activities?
Anne Milton
Of course, the figure for those taking foreign language GCSEs, which fall into that age group, has gone up from 40% to 47%. We have also protected the base rate of funding for 16 to 19-year-olds until 2020. I should add, too, that the proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds in education or apprenticeships is the highest since records began, and of course we are putting in significant support for disadvantaged students as well.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What extra support and funding is going in to help these disadvantaged students between the ages of 16 and 19?
Anne Milton
Some £500 million was made available for disadvantaged students in 2017-18; there is a supplement of £600 for every additional level 3 maths student; £34 million is going in for free school meals; and, of course, there are discretionary bursaries totalling up to £130 million—because we feel it is right that sixth-form and FE colleges distribute that money as they think best.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
There has not been a rate rise for 16 to 18-year-old provision for a very long time, and there is a real danger of cost pressures from pay increases and pension increases. What will the Government do to make sure that those cost pressures do not act as yet a further cut to funding for this very important age group?
Anne Milton
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I recognise that many providers feel that the base rate is too low, and I am sure that he will use whatever opportunities arise to make sure the Treasury is aware of his concern, as indeed will I. We will look to make additional funding available for the teachers’ pension scheme. I am very aware of the current issues.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to be satisfied that our schools are getting a proper allocation of funding. Will my right hon. Friend indicate how UK education spending compares to the OECD average?
Anne Milton
Certainly with regard to schools, it compares very favourably. It is important to recognise—
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The question is about sixth forms.
Anne Milton
I am aware, as Mr Speaker reminded my hon. Friend, that the question is about sixth forms, and there is no doubt that sixth-form colleges do a superb job. It is important in the post-16 landscape that we have multiple providers providing this education to 16 to 19-year-olds to make sure that there is ample choice for young people after GCSEs.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
There have already been cuts to FE courses, to teaching hours for those courses and to pastoral support in FE, and the entire sector is extremely concerned about the Budget to come and is expecting further cuts. Will the Minister commit right here and right now to no further cuts to FE colleges?
Anne Milton
I know that the hon. Lady is a doughty champion of her local college and all the work it does, but it has to be remembered that FE and sixth-form colleges are independent organisations—I think that people forget that or are unaware of it. I have recognised—[Interruption.] I have made it clear that I recognise that providers feel that the base rate is too low. There is a post-18 review coming along, and we need to make sure that it aligns well with our work on the resilience and efficiency of the FE sector. I am aware of the pressures, however, and I am sure that the hon. Lady, like the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), will make her representation to the Treasury for improved funding.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
The latest published school capacity data, from May 2017, show that the number of unfilled, or surplus, primary school places in Westminster was 2,158, 17.8% of the total number available there.
Ms Buck
Given the shortage of primary school places in a number of local authority areas, particularly on the edges of London, and the fall in the number of primary school children in Westminster schools—driven by the Government’s welfare reform agenda—will the Minister explain why it was sensible to fund the Minerva Academy, a free school, which was only ever half full, moved twice, never ended up on its permanent site, and closed this summer owing to lack of demand?
Nick Gibb
Eighty-six per cent. of newly opened free schools are in areas where more places are needed, and that is the case throughout the country. The other 14% are in areas where people are unhappy with the quality of provision. I should add that it is prudent for local authorities to retain some spare capacity in the system to allow for parental choice and to enable local authorities to manage shifting demand for places, to look further ahead at forecast demand, and not to strip out existing places that will be needed in the long term. If Labour had taken that approach when it was in office, it would not have cut 100,000 primary school places from our school system.
Mr Speaker
No, no. High Peak is a beautiful part of the country, of which the hon. Lady is an articulate champion, but it is a long way from Westminster, on which the question is focused.
Mr Speaker
She is here now, but she could be patient until later, when she will also be here.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
From January 2018, technical education apprenticeship providers must be allowed into schools to talk to those in years 8 to 13 about technical education and apprenticeships. I urge my hon. Friend, and all other Members when they visit schools, to ask what providers have been into them and to ensure that they hold schools in their constituencies to account, because they have a legal obligation. Schools are also responsible for giving those pupils independent careers advice on a range of education and training opportunities.
Mr Robertson
In my constituency, engineering companies find it difficult to recruit young people. I think that more should be done to help schools to give pupils the kind of career guidance that they need. Universities are only one option: apprenticeships are another. Can the Minister do even more to help schools to provide that advice?
Anne Milton
I will do everything that I can. I understand that 140 engineering starts have been reported so far in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and our Apprenticeship Support and Knowledge for Schools project, or ASK, is raising pupil awareness through assemblies, application workshops and live broadcasts involving employers such as the national health service and IBM. It is absolutely right that university is one of the options that are available to young people when they leave school.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Many midlands businesses, especially manufacturing businesses, are desperate for apprentices. Schools are currently focused on, and judged by, their ability to get students through exams and into university. Will the Secretary of State develop a set of performance indicators to demonstrate the success of schools in enabling their students to graduate into apprenticeships?
Anne Milton
The hon. Gentleman might like to have a look at destination tables. If companies in his constituency are finding it hard to find apprentices, in national apprenticeship week the National Apprenticeship Service offers some very good opportunities. Members on both sides of the House have run incredibly successful apprenticeship fairs, and the hon. Gentleman might consider doing that himself. A huge range of local employers and public sector organisations are involved, including the NHS, the UK Border Agency and the armed services, but on his particular patch, the engineering companies that are looking for apprentices might well want to take advantage of an opportunity with which he can provide them.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also important to engage parents in encouraging students to take on apprenticeships? Parents often have an old-fashioned view of apprenticeships, and are unaware of our modern version. What is my right hon. Friend doing to try to improve communication with parents?
Anne Milton
We are looking at every opportunity to improve that communication, and the apprenticeship fair is one option. If it is run from 5pm to 7pm it allows parents to come. As my hon. Friend rightly says, there is rather an old-fashioned view of apprenticeships being just about plumbers and electricians, but the world has changed. We can look at the figures and at what is now being done by some of the big engineering companies, big banks and other companies—such as KPMG, but I could name a whole host—and see that it is amazing how apprenticeships have changed; it is amazing how this Government have changed apprenticeships.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister surely knows that there is an attitude in so many schools that they want to keep that bum on the seat for as long as possible because they get that revenue. The fact is that she needs champions: she needs employers to get into schools more and she needs the FE colleges, as champions, to get into schools as well. If she backs the FE sector, she will get a very good result.
Anne Milton
We do have ambassadors: the young apprentice ambassadors network does a fantastic job of giving talks in schools, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to have those conversations with schools. I will do all I can; I feel passionately about the fact that there needs to be more choice for young people both at 16 and at 18. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) says, we need to educate the parents, and we also need to educate the schools. I point out again that schools have a legislative responsibility to make sure that technical education apprenticeship providers are allowed into schools, and you should call your local schools into account, Mr Speaker, as should all hon. Members.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
We have made excellent progress and are working closely with the selected providers who will deliver the first three T-levels from 2020 in digital, education and childcare, and construction.
Michael Fabricant
An Opposition Member has mentioned apprenticeships, and T-levels are very important in that area, but the business placement has to be effective, and Government research has shown that businesses say that that is important, too. So what are the Government doing to work with businesses to make sure that these placements are effective and meet the requirements of both business and education?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right: a quality industrial placement is a fundamental feature of T-levels, and piloting of these placements is already under way. Providers will be receiving nearly £60 million in 2018-19 to work with businesses to deliver those placements, which will significantly reduce the burden on businesses.
Mike Wood
My right hon. Friend will know that Dudley College of Technology has been selected to pilot all three of the strands of T-levels. Will he ensure that colleges receive the resources they need to deliver T-levels effectively and make a success of this fantastic initiative?
Damian Hinds
I will and, as my hon. Friend will be aware, we have committed significant extra resourcing for T-levels, and in the immediate term we are working closely with the 2020 providers, including in Dudley, to make sure they have the support they need.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
How are we going to avoid T-levels suffering the same fate as many other technical and vocational education qualifications? As we heard from the earlier comments on apprenticeships, so much of this is about parity of esteem and vocational education being seen as second-rate. What are we going to do about that, because otherwise this will fail?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman asks the most pertinent question on this subject, and I asked it immediately upon assuming my job as Secretary of State in the Department for Education. One of the key differences from previous attempts at reforming this landscape is that we will be implementing the Sainsbury report in full, rather than picking and choosing bits that might suit the political mood of the moment, and with T-levels we are not trying to create an all-encompassing qualification that does academic and does vocational and everything else as well; these are vocational and technical qualifications. They will be of a very high standard, benchmarked against the leading systems in the world, with more hours at college, a meaningful industrial placement—as we have just been talking about—and the integration of English, maths and digital skills.
James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
At a recent Education Committee hearing, the Minister responsible for T-levels, the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, the right hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), said that her advice to parents would be to leave it a year following the launch of T-levels in 2020. Is the Secretary of State’s advice to employers offering placements to students that they should also leave it for a year? If not, what is he doing to raise knowledge of this technical qualification among employers? Simply willing it so will not make it so.
Damian Hinds
No, willing it so would not make it so, but that is not what we are doing, and by the way, that is not what my right hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee either. I am pleased to be able to report that many thousands of businesses are already involved in this process through the design of the qualification and through putting forward placements in the first pilots of these industrial placements. That number will grow significantly this year.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
T-levels are a fantastic opportunity for preparation for the world of work. What further steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that businesses are onside and supportive, because there are some indications that some businesses are not behind this initiative?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right to suggest that businesses must be at the heart of this, and they are. The design of the qualifications is being done by business, and at every stage we are making sure that the leading players in every sector are involved in the design and the delivery.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
In June, in Education questions, I raised a range of substantial concerns with the Secretary of State about the progress of T-levels, but he pooh-poohed them, saying that he did not recognise the premises. Perhaps he will now recognise the three further reports that came out this summer, including one from his own Department, which show further concerns about the Government’s handling of the T-level process. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development survey showed that only 60% of employers had heard of T-levels, and that two thirds of small enterprises had not done so. Its advisers said there was a “fatal mismatch” between what employers needed and what the Government were offering. The Chartered Management Institute survey showed that two thirds of parents had not heard of T-levels, and the Department for Education’s own report said that employers needed clearer information and would not commit without it. The T-level process is in a mess, like the Secretary of State’s apprenticeship targets. It needs more Government money, more information, more resources and more capacity. What is he doing about that?
Damian Hinds
I am pleased to take the hon. Gentleman’s advice to devote more focus, more resourcing and more capacity to T-levels; that is precisely what we are doing. The programme is well on track and, far from what he has just described, it has the support of business and of the colleges that we are bringing in in the earliest stages. At the moment, this will involve only a relatively small number of students who are starting their GCSE courses this year and who will start their T-levels in a small number of colleges in 2020, but we will see the programme grow and grow from there.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
Since 2010, we have seen a narrowing in the attainment gap of at least 10% in the early years, at primary school, at secondary school and in higher education entry. Improving social mobility and widening opportunity are at the heart of everything we do in every phase of education.
Scott Mann
When I go to speak to my secondary schools and colleges, I am amazed by how many young people think that they are going to live or work within 15 miles of where they went to school. What can we do to utilise technology to ensure that people from financially or geographically challenging areas can get access to good quality employment?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the deployment of technology. This is a project that we are paying close attention to at the Department for Education. He and I have spoken before about our work with the Department for Work and Pensions, and some of the work that is done in jobcentres and within the job search process. There is more that could be done on work experience opportunities and on highlighting the apprenticeship opportunities that we have just been talking about, and I would be pleased to hear from him further about his ideas.
Justin Madders
As we know, the Education Committee proposed to give the Social Mobility Commission some much-needed teeth by allowing it to undertake social impact assessments. If the Government are really serious about tackling burning injustices, why did the Secretary of State rule out that proposal?
Damian Hinds
We have a new chair for the Social Mobility Commission, and I think that she will be an excellent chair, with her background in the Prince’s Trust and in promoting social justice. We expect the commissioners to be appointed shortly, and that body will have an important role to play in the evolution and measurement of social mobility, and indeed in the holding to account of the Government on the progress of social mobility.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that a major cause of social injustice and a barrier to social mobility is the number of exclusions and the off-rolling that is going on in our schools? The Education Committee’s report “Forgotten Children” identified what Ofsted has said: more than 19,000 year 10 pupils in 2016 did not progress to year 11 in the same school in 2017 and around half did not reappear at another state-funded school. Ofsted has also identified 300 schools with particularly high levels of off-rolling. Does he agree that schools need to be more accountable and that we must stop off-rolling once and for all?
Damian Hinds
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has raised that important issue. As he will know, the level of exclusions has thankfully not risen to the level we saw under the previous Labour Government, but it is nevertheless a matter of concern. Let me be absolutely clear that using a permanent exclusion should be a last resort after all other things have been tried. We expect schools to have an active behaviour policy and to be held to account on that by Ofsted. As for the specific question about exclusions, they are a matter of concern and one of the reasons that we asked Edward Timpson to conduct a review. We look forward to hearing from him soon.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
Children with special needs obviously have particular difficulty in accessing support to enable them to raise their station. Following Education questions in June, I wrote to the Secretary of State in July regarding the particular problems in Derbyshire and I asked him to meet with me to discuss the problems that my constituents and many others across Derbyshire are having.
Damian Hinds
I am always happy to meet the hon. Lady, who rightly highlights the particular hurdles and challenges that children with special needs can have, which I absolutely recognise. That is one of the reasons that we have the highest high-needs budget on record, and there is more recognition across the entire education system of some of the methods that can be used to support such children. However, we can always do more and I will be pleased to hear from her.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
My borough of Bexley has many good and excellent schools that are delivering social mobility. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done through investment in early language and literacy skills to ensure that all children have equal opportunities?
Damian Hinds
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of early language and literacy, and he is right to identify some of the excellent provision in his constituency. I recently set out my ambition to halve the number of children who start school without vital literacy skills. There are many facets to that, such as what happens in early years settings and in the home learning environment, which we will have to pay more attention to in the years to come.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
This summer has seen a record number of young people in Scotland gain a place at a Scottish university, including a 5% increase in young people from the most deprived communities. Scottish students are not being dissuaded by the tens of thousands of pounds-worth of debt facing students elsewhere in these Isles. What lessons does the right hon. Gentleman think he can learn from Scotland regarding university policy assisting social mobility?
Damian Hinds
But Scotland does have a cap on student numbers, which is a reality of having a system unlike ours. We have seen a record proportion of children from disadvantaged backgrounds being able to go on to university, which is to be welcomed.
Neil Gray
Thanks to the lack of capped places, experts have warned that some universities in England are at risk of going under, with many universities facing major losses, particularly over the past five years. Given that that is a result of this Government’s policy of encouraging competition, has the right hon. Gentleman made any assessment of how badly university closures in disadvantaged areas would damage social mobility?
Damian Hinds
Universities can be great engines of social mobility, and many do great work in that regard. Over £800 million is now being allocated to improve access to university, which is to be welcomed.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
We have heard concerns from many Members across the House about social mobility, and the Chair of the Education Committee has recommended that the Social Mobility Commission get the resources and the powers that it needs. It is now nine months since the entire commission resigned in despair, so will the Secretary of State guarantee that the new commission will be appointed before a full year has passed?
Damian Hinds
Of course, we have already had the appointment of the chair of the commission, and I expect to be able to announce appointments to the commission in October.
Angela Rayner
This summer the Conservative party was concerned about an unseen social mobility crisis following the departure of the Foreign Secretary. As a Telegraph headline asked, with no old Etonians in Cabinet, “where will the talent come from?” Perhaps the Secretary of State can help to answer that question by confirming that he has accepted our call to ditch the Prime Minister’s scheme to spend £20 million ferrying a few hundred pupils up to 30 miles a day by taxi to get to their nearest grammar school. Will he now tell us whether he accepts our point that he should reinvest the savings in reversing the cuts to school transport for all?
Damian Hinds
You are very kind, Chris.
There are many different angles to our social mobility approach. As I mentioned in my opening answer, our focus on social mobility means that, at every phase of education, we have seen a narrowing in the attainment gap between the rich and the poor of at least 10%—in early years, in primary school, in secondary school and in entry to higher education. It is our school professionals, our teachers and other staff who have made that happen, supported by our reforms, by the fact that more children are going to good and outstanding schools, by the free schools programme and by the availability of quality new places and rigorous standards in schools.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
We are fully funding the teachers’ pay award by providing a teachers’ pay grant worth £187 million in 2018-19 and £321 million in 2019-20. This funding will be over and above the core funding that schools receive through the national funding formula.
Ruth Cadbury
That is not the experience of heads and governors in Hounslow. The pay award is not fully funded. Schools are expected to pick up the tab for the first 1% of the cost of the pay award, so they are having to make further cuts to school provision and staffing. Also, schools have not been told how the pay award will be funded after 2020. Will the Minister come to meet heads and governors in Hounslow to explain how he thinks they will be able to achieve this?
Nick Gibb
The pay award is being funded over and above the 1% for which schools have already budgeted. Incidentally, the 3.5% pay award for teachers on the main pay scale takes the pay range to between £29,600 and £40,300. The 2% pay rise will be funded over and above the 1%, and the 1.5% pay rise for headteachers will also be funded over and above the 1% that schools have already awarded. Pay scales for headteachers, for example, now range up to £111,000 a year for some heads, and £118,000 for headteachers in inner London, although I accept that those figures are not as high as the pay of the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, which is over £200,000.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I have raised school budgets in my constituency, about which I am concerned, with the Minister on a number of occasions, and I thank him for spending the time to look into them. Although school budgets are increasing per pupil by a minuscule amount, it is clear that costs, of which teachers’ pay is only one, are going up much faster than the per pupil increase. What can he do to make sure that school budgets, particularly in my Shipley constituency, rise at a rate that ensures they can cover the increased costs they are expected to incur?
Nick Gibb
We are spending record amounts on school funding—£42.4 billion this year—but we accept that schools are facing some cost pressures. We are helping schools with their resource management, and we are providing national buying schemes so that they can buy things such as energy and computers more cheaply.
We are also introducing a free teacher vacancy scheme, which is being rolled out later this year—it has already been piloted in Cambridgeshire and the north-east—and which will save schools £78 million a year.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Is the Minister aware that the Treasury has not funded the teachers’ pay increase for Welsh teachers, and therefore that, if there is to be a pay increase for teachers in Wales, it will mean redundancies, a reduction in provision for pupils with special educational needs and a reduction in school investment budgets?
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
By 2019-20 we will be spending £1 billion extra annually to deliver 30 hours a week of free childcare and pay our higher funding rates. Those rates were based on our review of childcare costs, described as “thorough and wide-ranging” by the National Audit Office. We have commissioned further new research to understand providers’ current costs.
Liz Twist
Last Friday I visited Bright Sparks nursery in my constituency, which is rated “outstanding” and is long-established. The staff told me how difficult they are finding it to make ends meet under the new funding regime, and that is borne out by a report by the National Day Nurseries Association. Can the Minister tell us how nurseries are supposed to remain open when facing that shortfall? I am glad to hear that he is looking again at the costs, but I hope it will be a thorough look.
Nadhim Zahawi
We continue to monitor the costs and, as I said earlier, we have commissioned further research. The evidence that we currently have shows that the majority of providers are willing and able to deliver the extended entitlement. Some 340,000 children have benefited from 30-hour funding places in the scheme’s first year, so it is certainly a success story, but the hon. Lady is right that we have to monitor what pressures there are.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
On 31 August the Daily Mail ran a front-page story stating that a third of nurseries could shut because of school funding levels. Given that there are actually now more nurseries in other settings providing free childcare, does the Minister think it should apologise and issue a correction for gullibly following the lines being peddled by the Opposition Front Benchers and for misleading so many parents in such a worrying way?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my predecessor for that question. I think I will leave it to the Daily Mail to decide what it does. Suffice it to say that the number of non-domestic providers has remained stable.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure the Minister can guess what I am going to ask about.
Among early years provision, the jewel in the crown for social mobility is our maintained nursery schools. The Minister will know from the conversations that we had before the summer that the supplementary funding that they receive from the Government is due to run out before the comprehensive spending review, so does he have an update for the House on what he and the Treasury are doing to ensure that our maintained nursery schools have a secure future beyond next year?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. Maintained nurseries offer a valuable service to communities such as hers and others around the country, and we are conscious of the value that they provide. Both I and the Secretary of State have visited a number of them. Decisions about the future funding of maintained provision will be taken at the spending review, but I repeat that it would be premature for local authorities to make decisions about the future of their maintained nurseries before seeing the spending review outcomes.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
The National Day Nurseries Association survey last week exposed the scale of closures caused by underfunding the 30-hour entitlement—a rise of nearly half over a year. Bright Beginnings in Stockport said that
“the reality is we can’t provide Outstanding nursery care on the funding provided.”
The Ark nursery in West Sussex said that it was
“closing because of a decade of underfunding.”
Windymiller, in my own constituency, on the estate where I grew up, closed its doors a few months ago due to funding pressures. Those are not outliers. Four in 10 providers fear that they will have to close in the coming year. These are viable businesses that just cannot square the circle of frozen funding and rising costs. If the Minister will not listen to us, will he at least listen to them?
Nadhim Zahawi
Let me attempt to address that point specifically. National average hourly funding rates for local authorities for three and four-year-old entitlements increased from £4.56 an hour to around £5 an hour in April 2017. Our rates compare very favourably with the published research on the costs of childcare by Frontier Economics, which shows that the mean hourly cost of delivering a place is £3.72 an hour. I know that this is technical, but it is worth listening to, because the hon. Lady keeps going back to points that she clearly has not followed the details of. The research also showed that the average cost of two-year-olds’ places was £4.30 an hour, and our average funding rate is £5.92 an hour. All local authorities saw a 7% increase in the two-year-old rate in April 2017. We continue to monitor this, but those are the facts, and I hope that she will look and them and think about what she is saying about them publicly.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
We have committed £7 billion to the delivery of new school places between 2015 and 2021, on top of our investment in the free schools programme. We are on track to create a million places between 2010 and 2020.
Mary Robinson
Today, Laurus Cheadle Hulme, a newly built, state-of-the-art free school, opened its gates to a new cohort of students. Initially, it will provide 210 year 7 places. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the free schools programme is a hugely important part of the delivery of good schools in Cheadle and beyond, and will he join me in wishing those at Laurus Cheadle Hulme the very best of luck on their first day?
Damian Hinds
I certainly do and will. This is one of the 53 free schools that have opened this month, bringing more good-quality places and more choice for parents. I congratulate the team at Laurus Cheadle Hulme on the school’s opening and look forward to hearing of their successes in the years to come.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
How many staff in the Secretary of State’s Department are working on free schools?
Damian Hinds
Many different teams in the Department for Education work directly or indirectly on free schools, because they are an important and integral part of our school system.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Stockport local education authority to support calls for a new stand-alone primary school in the Marple area of my constituency, to meet rising demand, rather than cramming new places into sites that are already full?
Damian Hinds
I am not in the position to judge between those two points directly, but I very much agree with my hon. Friend that there are different ways to achieve expansion. Of course, the bulk of the expansion of school places comes from expanding existing schools, but there is also the possibility to create new schools through the free schools programme. The deadline for the next wave of free school applications is 5 November.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
A few years ago, Brookfield Community School in Chesterfield was an outstanding local authority-run school. Because of the financial pressure the Government put on the school to become an academy, it has done so, but just a few weeks ago it was rated as “requiring improvement” and the academy arrangements have now been sacked. Will the Secretary of State recognise that outstanding schools can be run by local authorities and academies, drop the ideology, and let schools stay as local authority-run if that is what they want to do? The ideology hurts parents, pupils and teachers.
Damian Hinds
I have always recognised—and said as much—that we can of course find excellent education provision in a number of different models, as well as academies. Overall, the academies programme has been a great force for good. Something like half a million pupils are now studying in sponsored academies that are rated good or outstanding, and those academies typically replaced underperforming schools.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that 91% of all the new school places created between 2016 and 2017 were in schools that were rated either good or outstanding?
Damian Hinds
I very much agree with my hon. Friend on that; of course, he has a new and particular interest in and concern about the future of the next generation, and I congratulate him on that. It is very important that we are creating a million new school places this decade—that is the biggest expansion in school capacity for at least two generations. It is vital that we do that in good and outstanding schools, where possible.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Last time at Education questions, I highlighted the damning evidence from Ofsted’s own figures that showed that it rated schools by deprivation, rather than by the quality of teaching and learning. On Friday, we learned from the Public Accounts Committee that Ofsted does not listen sufficiently to parents and has failed to provide accurate information to Parliament. Does the Secretary of State now agree that Ofsted is not fit for purpose and that it is time for root and branch reform?
Damian Hinds
I do not agree with that. Ofsted does a very worthwhile and high-quality job, which is reflected in the fact that, for parents, Ofsted reports are the second most significant piece of information about schools, after only location. People trust the judgments that they get from Ofsted, and it is the only body that is in a position to make an overall judgment on the quality and breadth of education, alongside the results.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
To address the shortage of science, technology, engineering and maths skills, the Government are committed to encouraging more students into STEM education and training. We are investing an additional £406 million in skills, including in maths and digital, and this includes the advanced maths premium and an £84 million programme to improve the teaching of computing.
Mr Dunne
I welcome the investment to which the Minister referred. Does he agree that it is at primary school where children need to be encouraged to enjoy maths? Initiatives such as the green car challenge run by south Shropshire engineering ambassadors, where year 6 pupils in south Shropshire make a vehicle that can run on renewable energy, can excite young people and bring STEM subjects to life.
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Excellent projects such as the green car challenge for year 6 pupils in schools in south Shropshire help to bring science to life and they help to motivate those pupils when they start secondary school where, since 2010, the proportion taking at least two science GCSEs has risen from 63% of 16-year-olds in 2010 to 91% now.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State and the rest of the Education Department recognise the importance of agricultural science to help address the need for more food production in this country on the back of the forthcoming Bill? Is it not about time that we included agricultural science in the STEM subjects?
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)
We want our universities to be bastions of free speech where a free and robust exchange of ideas thrives. I am very encouraged that the Office for Students has made it very clear that, as a regulator, it will be encouraging free speech in our universities and that, if it intervenes, it will never be to restrict it.
Chris Davies
Earlier this summer, the Universities Minister made it clear that free speech on campus should be encouraged and that those attempting to shut it down should have nowhere to hide. Does my hon. Friend agree that hearing, considering and debating different views are a key part of learning?
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want free speech, diversity of opinion, diversity of thought and civility in debate, where people do not easily take offence or give offence too easily. That is why I am working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission and key stakeholders to come up with new guidance on free speech to deal with the dizzying array of regulations that wreckers on campus can exploit to frustrate free speech.
Andrew Bowie
My hon. Friend will agrees that many of us in the Chamber would not be here today were it not for the culture of free speech and our ability to engage in it on our campuses to develop and hone our political philosophies and arguments for right or wrong. Does he agree that we in this place who have benefited most from that right have a duty to stand up for it wherever we see it under threat on far too many of our university campuses?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What progress has been made in developing guidance with universities to clarify the rules surrounding free speech for students and for the universities?
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
Latest Ofsted data confirm that 94% of providers were rated as good or outstanding, up 20 percentage points since 2012. We have recently published new criteria to raise the quality of level 2 qualifications and are investing £20 million in professional development for early years practitioners working in disadvantaged areas.
Tom Pursglove
Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Pen Green Centre in Corby on recently winning The Times Educational Supplement overall best school award? Has he given thought as to how best practice at that particular setting can be shared more widely?
Nadhim Zahawi
Maintained nursery schools make an important contribution to improving the lives of some of our most disadvantaged children. As I mentioned earlier, I have visited a number of these schools, as has the Secretary of State, and Pen Green is at the forefront of what maintained nursery schools do. Its award is well deserved and I offer it my warmest congratulations. Our research on the value offered by maintained nursery schools will inform spending review decisions about their future funding.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Children from the poorest families in this country are much more likely to suffer a major brain injury by the age of five. Nobody quite knows the precise reasons why that is the case, but the statistic is replicated by the figure for children between the ages of 14 and 21 from poorer families. That is a major reason why many children fall out of the education system and end up in prison. I urge the Minister to look at the new figures. Will he meet me and people from the United Kingdom Acquired Brain Injury Forum to discuss what we can do to ensure that children, in particular from the poorest areas and the poorest families, get a better chance in life?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I know that he does not come to the House without looking at the figures properly, and I would be very happy to meet him to look at them with him.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
I know that the whole House would want to wish a happy and successful year to all children starting school this month or going to a new school, including one of the 53 new free schools that opened last week. We also welcome the tens of thousands of new teachers joining the 450,000-strong profession this month and around 30,000 who are due to start their teacher training. We will continue to work with the profession this academic year to build on the progress that it has made happen since 2010, with rising standards, more high-quality school places, and a significant narrowing of the attainment gap between the rich and the poor.
Gordon Henderson
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to reduce the number of looked-after children from London who are placed in socially deprived areas of Kent, such as Swale and Thanet? These often vulnerable children have to be educated in Kent, with the costs being borne by Kent schools. Does my right hon. Friend believe that is fair?
Damian Hinds
I take this matter very seriously, and the Minister for Children and Families recently met the executive headteacher of the Coastal Academies Trust to discuss the issue. We want to reduce out-of-area placements and ensure that looked-after children can access high-quality education provision. We are providing funding through our £200 million children’s social care innovation programme to increase councils’ capacity, so that fewer children are placed far away from home.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Legislation and guidance regarding looked-after children—for example, on such children having their own social worker—is vital to safeguarding their welfare. The recent guide for local authorities published by the Department refers to this legislation and guidance as myth, and actively urges local authorities to dispense with their statutory obligations, thereby cutting vulnerable children adrift. Worse still, only this morning the Minister responded to those criticisms by advising that statutory guidance is open to interpretation. Is it now the Department’s policy that statutory guidance in relation to vulnerable children no longer needs to be followed?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
I responded very clearly to the myth-busting document. We consulted directors of children’s services and with Ofsted before we published the myth-busting document, and we made it very clear this morning that no legislation has changed, or is going to change, in any way.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. As she hints, we have appointed a strong sponsor for Whitehaven Academy that is already driving forward improvements, backed by substantial funding to improve teaching, resources and the school estate at that school. The overwhelming majority of academies tell a positive story of driving up standards, and the latest published accounts show no regularity exceptions, as they are called, for more than 95% of trusts. The Education and Skills Funding Agency has learned from the experience of the Bright Tribe Trust and other cases, and has made improvements.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
The Construction Industry Training Board has worked with all 1,148 apprentices. For 776 of them, the issue has been resolved and they have got training places and employers, for 225 we are still looking to find a match for them, and 147 have failed to respond following repeated attempts to get in touch with them. The Construction Industry Training Board should be congratulated on what it has done. It has used letters, emails and texts—every way possible—to get hold of those 147, and it is to be praised.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I welcome the Government bringing forward proposals to introduce first-aid education in our schools. Does the Minister agree that giving children these skills will give them the confidence to save lives, and we can create a new generation of life-savers?
Damian Hinds
We all know how important it is that young people are given the knowledge to be healthy, happy and safe. That is why, for the first time, all state-funded schools will be required to teach health education. The draft statutory guidance includes content on first aid. I commend my hon. Friend and others in this House who have campaigned on this issue very consistently.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Nick Gibb
We have record numbers of teachers—450,000, which is 10,000 more. The number actually fell this year, but there are 450,000 teachers in our school system—10,000 more than in 2010. The average class size in secondary schools has risen only slightly since 2010 despite the fact that there are 32,000 more secondary school places, and similarly in primary schools, despite the fact that there are over 500,000 more primary school pupils in our schools. We are working in areas around the country, including the north-east, to improve teacher recruitment and retention in those areas.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The students union at Anglia Ruskin University has recently undertaken a detailed study of mental health issues faced by students, and it strongly recommends the benefits of students registering with two GPs—one at home and one at university. Will my right hon. Friend work with our new Secretary of State for Health to see how this could be made possible in a 21st-century NHS?
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)
My hon. Friend is right to point out that transitions do, in general, pose difficulty for students—transition from school to university, but also transition from one set of health partners to others. The “Minding our future” report published by Universities UK in May states that better sharing of patient records is essential to address potential discontinuity of care. I hear what she is saying about registering with two GPs, but I will be seeking to work with the Health Secretary on how we can make sure that the records are transferred to make sure that students are well taken care of in this period of transition.
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
Anne Milton
This is extremely important. We are very aware of the specific problems for children with SEND. We are working very closely with a number of providers to make sure that this is available. We have made adjustments on apprenticeships. We will continue to make adjustments to make sure that T-levels are available for all.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
One of the most effective engines of social mobility in this country remains the Army. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what some are saying today, our schools should remain open and welcoming places for members of our armed forces to come in and inform, inspire and give good career advice to young people, especially those from working-class backgrounds?
Damian Hinds
Yes, I do. Those partnerships are incredibly important and can provide very important role models.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Nick Gibb
We take the fabric of school buildings very seriously. We undertook a survey of all school buildings in the country. We are spending £23 billion both on increasing the number of school places and improving the quality of school buildings. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady and her constituent to discuss that particular school.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
Identifying and supporting children in their early education can often help to ensure that they get on in school and remain in mainstream education. So many who are excluded have communication difficulties or other problems with basic skills. In Mansfield this year, one in four children start primary school without those basic skills. What can my right hon. Friend do to support schools such as Forest Town Primary, which offers a nurture group to help those pupils transition to school, and help other schools to provide that kind of facility?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right to identify that area. One element of the early years foundation stage profile is the personal, social and emotional development of children, which is vital. There is a whole range of things we need to think about in this area. One of them is the announcement I made a short while ago about ensuring there is adequate provision of high-quality school-based nurseries, particularly in deprived areas, but we also have to think about what happens at home and in other settings.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Nadhim Zahawi
We have allocated £1.5 million from the tampon tax fund to that and are looking at further evidence, to see whether there is a link to absenteeism from school.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
West Oxfordshire’s thriving high-tech businesses are in urgent need of employees with technical skills. What steps is the Department taking to provide STEM careers advice in schools?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right to identify that critical need for business. Of course, we have very low unemployment in this country—the lowest since 1975—and that makes recruitment a challenge for many, but we also need to ensure that those skills are there. That is one reason why digital will be one of the first T-levels that is in place. There are many great schemes, as he alludes to, that help to give young people careers advice and make them aware of the possibilities of STEM subjects. It is not just STEM ambassadors. We need to thread this through our entire careers education programme.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
Nick Gibb
The hon. Gentleman should know that since 2010, we have created 825,000 school places and are on track to have 1 million new school places. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that is the biggest school expansion programme for at least two generations. That is in sharp contrast with what happened between 2004 and 2010 under the last Labour Government, which cut 100,000 school places from our system.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Students and teachers at Wilsthorpe Community School in Long Eaton have begun the new academic year in a new £16 million school building, funded by the Department. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates the Government’s commitment to improving school facilities for all, and will he join me on a visit to the school in the near future?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right to identify what is going on. My right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has just talked about the £23 billion of expansion and improvement capital that we have over the five-year period. We are committed to ensuring that we have the right number of places but also the right quality of places. She is right to highlight that point.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Nadhim Zahawi
High-needs funding for children and young people with complex special educational needs, including those with autism, is £6 billion this year—the highest it has ever been—and an increase from £5 billion in 2013. We have increased overall funding allocations to local authorities for high needs by £130 million in 2017-18 and £142 million in 2018-19, and we will increase this further, by £120 million, in 2019-20.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Will the Minister update the House on the progress of the national assessment and accreditation system for children’s social workers?
Nadhim Zahawi
NAAS is progressing extremely well. In early results, it has had a satisfaction rating of something like 86% for those very excellent social workers who have been through the system, and we look to continue that success.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Damian Hinds
Our plan on mental health, as put forward in the Green Paper, contains three important elements: there is the designated senior lead in each school; there are the support teams in or around schools; and there is piloting the shorter wait time for children and young people’s mental health services. More broadly, the Government are investing £1.4 billion to improve children and young people’s mental health services. Quite rightly, there is a much wider appreciation of these issues now than there ever has been, and schools have an important part to play in this alongside society as a whole.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
Following his meeting last week with the Family Rights Group to discuss the care crisis review, will the Children’s Minister now consider developing a long-term strategy for reducing the number of children being taken into care?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend had a debate on the care crisis review last week. We recognise that the number of care order applications and the number of children in care have risen, meaning more work for local authorities. That is why we are working across Government, as I articulated in that debate in Westminster Hall last week, to ensure that local authorities and the courts have the resources that they need.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Nationally, only 6% of care leavers make it to higher education in comparison with the nigh-on 50% of young people who go to university year on year. This is a tragically low figure. What steps is the Department for Education taking to ensure that those leaving care have the same life chances as any other young people?
Nadhim Zahawi
Care leavers are an important part of the overall strategy for support for children in need, which we have reviewed. Very importantly, we are also launching the care leaver covenant on 26 October, with which we will continue to maintain further support for care leavers; obviously, we have already extended the system of personal advisers to the age of 25.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State want to join me in congratulating North Yorkshire County Council children services department and its director, Stuart Carlton, on achieving the country’s first ever perfect score—outstanding in every area inspected by Ofsted? Furthermore, does he agree that that is very good news for the most vulnerable children in places such as Scarborough and Whitby?
Damian Hinds
I am more than happy to join my right hon. Friend in those congratulations. It was a great pleasure to visit his constituency recently to meet some of the people involved in the local opportunity area and see the extent of their ambition for children and young people in the area, for which they are much to be commended.
Several hon. Members rose—
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Under this Government, children with special needs are six times more likely to be excluded than their peers. In Norwich, headteachers have described provision for special educational needs as a complete mess because of a funding shortfall. Will Ministers commit to increasing funding support for these children to ensure that they get the education they do not just deserve, but is their right?
Nadhim Zahawi
The Government have launched the most ambitious SEND reforms in a generation and are committed to improving outcomes for children with special educational needs. More than 98% of statements of SEN were reviewed by 31 March deadline for introducing education, health and care plans. The hon. Gentleman talks about funding, but we have given £391 million to local areas to support implementation of the new duties in the Children and Families Act 2014.
Idlib
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the political and humanitarian situation in and around Idlib in Syria.
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his urgent question and congratulate him on securing it. The United Kingdom is extremely concerned about the escalating military action by Russia and the Syrian regime, which is putting at risk nearly 3 million civilians who have sought shelter in Idlib and the surrounding area. The past few days have seen dozens of Russian and regime airstrikes against areas of Idlib. Over the weekend we received reports of three hospitals, two White Helmets centres and an ambulance system being attacked and put out of service, leaving thousands with no access to medical care. Civilians, medical facilities and aid workers must be protected; they are not a target.
It is vital that a humanitarian catastrophe is avoided. The UN has been clear that a worst-case scenario in Idlib would
“overwhelm capacities and…create a humanitarian emergency at a scale not yet seen through”
the conflict, with up to 900,000 people displaced. We have therefore been supporting the urgent diplomatic efforts being made by Turkey and the UN. I spoke to my Turkish counterpart on 4 September, and the Prime Minister spoke to President Erdoğan on 27 August to discuss the situation. Of course, the situation is considered by the UN Security Council very frequently.
It is deeply disappointing that Russia and Iran rejected President Erdoğan’s calls for a renewed ceasefire at the Tehran summit last Friday. Russia and the Syrian regime also rejected similar calls by ourselves and others at the UN Security Council on the same day. We urge them to reconsider and instead to find a negotiated way forward to avoid an entirely man-made disaster.
The UK has pledged additional humanitarian assistance and medical support. We are also backing innovative early-warning technology to save lives in communities threatened by airstrikes. Finally, along with the United States and France, we have been clear that we will respond swiftly and appropriately if the Assad regime repeats its appalling use of chemical weapons.
Stephen Doughty
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and the Minister for responding to it. There is a significant risk in this House that our current focus on Brexit and many other issues means that Parliament, the Government and, indeed, the media pay far too little attention to the horrific scenes and repeated brutal attacks on civilians and humanitarians that we are seeing in places such as Syria and Yemen. In that regard, I commend the efforts of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) to constantly bring to our attention the situation facing Syrian civilians. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who chairs the International Development Committee, for making an application today for a urgent debate on Yemen, which I support.
As the Minister said, this weekend has sadly seen a further grim descent into violence in and around Idlib, which many of us predicted. Russian and Syrian jets have resumed intensive airstrikes after the failure to agree a ceasefire. It is alleged that on Saturday regime forces carried out attacks with artillery and rocket shelling for over three hours. Yesterday, Syrian army helicopters and Russian air forces conducted 60 strikes for over four hours, including with barrel bombs, typically filled with high explosives and shrapnel, on Habeet, Abdin, Hasraya, Al Zakat and many other villages around Hama and Idlib. It is therefore crucial that we understand what the UK Government’s political, humanitarian and military strategy is, given the breakdown of the talks and the horrific scenes.
The Minister mentioned the work of the White Helmets. In the past few hours, I have seen video footage showing horrific attacks on their brave workers, who are under fire from indiscriminate artillery and cluster bombs. We cannot and must not simply wring our hands and say, “It’s all very difficult.” Millions of civilians are trapped in the province, including people who have been displaced from other parts of Syria by the Assad regime. Hospitals have been targeted, in violation of international law. Schools have been hit, and children have been injured and killed. Barrel bombs have been used, in violation of UN Security Council resolution 2139 and others. We led an international fight against cluster munitions, yet we have seen them used in Syria and Yemen.
With a staggering 5.3 million children in need of assistance across Syria, Save the Children and other agencies have warned that hundreds of thousands of people will be displaced in this initial offensive, piling pressure on an already overstretched humanitarian response. This has been echoed by the UN Secretary General and many of the humanitarian agencies responding to 3.9 million people already living in and around Idlib, with many of the population having fled places such as eastern Ghouta with almost nothing.
I know that the Minister takes these issues very seriously, and he has already set out a number of the steps that the UK Government are taking, but could he answer a few questions? Is he tracking, and will he publish details of, air attacks on civilians from wherever they come? What UK military support could be used to support the maintenance of humanitarian corridors, or to prevent the indiscriminate bombing of civilians and the use of chemical weapons? What will be the consequences for Assad, Putin and other belligerents if these violations of international humanitarian law continue, whether through the use of chemical weapons, barrel bombs or cluster munitions, all of which are equally wrong? What assessment has the Minister made of the potential for such attacks to be carried out? What sanctions have been issued against individual Russians and others who command responsibility for operations in Syria? Will the Minister say a little more about his discussions with the Turkish Government? What discussions have there been about the permissions for NGOs to operate in Turkish-held areas? Many are not registered in Turkey and may need assistance to be able to carry out operations in those areas with one of our allies.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. These are incredibly serious issues. I hope that the whole House and the country will be looking at them very closely.
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and, of course, to others who take a very close interest in this situation. I can assure him that there is no shortage of efforts by the United Kingdom Government on this matter, whether here, in capitals abroad or at the UN.
The hon. Gentleman accurately describes the situation, which has become desperately familiar, regarding the conduct of events in Syria, where civilian populations have been put at risk. We estimate that the Idlib region now has some 3 million inhabitants, many of whom have been displaced from other parts of Syria. The number of extremist fighters is reckoned to be quite small—perhaps 15,000, with maybe a further 25,000 to 35,000 opposition fighters—and that number is dwarfed by the number of people in Idlib itself. As our excellent permanent representative said at the UN last week, there are more babies in Idlib than there are terrorists. That is why we need to concentrate our efforts on humanitarian relief and assistance, and to try to find a negotiated way out of the situation.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions, I am not sure it is technically possible to track every air strike. Certainly we know when they have happened, but I am not sure how we would be able to find out from where they are being directed or anything like that. The obvious nature of the air strikes is very clear: they are from the Russian and the Syrian regimes. No one else is up in the air, so we all know where they are coming from.
The UN is actively considering any measure that might assist civilians. If there are corridors, there are questions to be asked about such things as how they would be made secure and policed, and we will give every consideration to that. No suggestion has been made for any military intervention in relation to that. If it were to be done with United Kingdom involvement, that would be a military intervention on Syrian soil, which would have obvious consequences. That has not yet been contemplated.
In terms of consequences and accountability, sanctions are already in place against Russian entities and that will continue to be the case. Last week at the Security Council, the permanent representative read through details of the units of the Syrian army that were involved in the Idlib operation, together with the names of their commanders, and made it very clear that accountability would follow. I think that that was a bold and necessary step. [Official Report, 12 September 2018, Vol. 646, c. 4MC.]
On the hon. Gentleman’s question about the potential of chemical warfare, the truth is, of course, that we have seen it elsewhere. The permanent representative spoke about the failure to deal with chemical weapons usage, saying last week:
“As of March 2018, the OPCW”—
the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons—
“fact finding mission had confirmed 13 cases of likely chemical weapons use in Syria since it was established in 2014. And in terms of allegations, the fact finding mission have recorded at least 390 allegations. After more than four years of work by the declaration assessment team, the OPCW still is unable to verify that the Syrian declaration is accurate.”
She continued:
“And we’ve heard many times that there are ‘gaps, inconsistencies and discrepancies’ in Syria’s account of its declaration under the CWC.”
We can be fairly clear that those weapons still exist and are available in Syria. Of course, we have seen instances when conventional military action has been followed towards the end by chemical weapons usage. We have made it very clear through the UN and partners that appropriate action would be taken if that were the case. We are all also aware of disinformation campaigns being launched to say that such a chemical weapons attack is being prepared by other sources. There is no credibility to those accounts, they will not be used as a smokescreen should chemical weapons be used, and people will be properly held accountable.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in all the international councils the immense moral authority that Britain has in this matter is exercised to the full? After all, we are, through our taxpayers, looking after more of the 11 million displaced people from this conflict than the whole of the rest of Europe added together. Will he also be sure to make it clear that the bombing of hospitals in Idlib, each of which is clearly marked with a red cross on its roof, is a war crime, and that the individuals engaging in those attacks will be held to account, however long it takes?
Alistair Burt
I agree with my right hon. Friend. The United Kingdom has spent some £2.71 billion on supporting those in Syria who have been displaced. We have provided food, healthcare, water and other life-saving relief to the internally displaced. Since 2012, we have delivered more than 22 million food rations, 9 million relief packages, 9 million medical consultations and 5 million vaccines to those in need across the country. The work of the Department for International Development is commended all round.
The determination was increased last week. On 17 August, I announced a further £10 million in additional emergency and medical support for Idlib. My right hon. Friend’s point about health centres is well made—we have more documented evidence of recent attacks on health centres. This is unacceptable. The deliberate targeting of health centres is against international humanitarian law, as he said, and that should be spelt out every single time.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth on securing it. I can only echo what he said about the terrible bloodshed and humanitarian crisis that is looming in Idlib, the urgency for all sides to work to find some form of peaceful political solution to avert it, and the importance of holding those responsible for war crimes to account.
I want to press the Government specifically on how they intend to respond if there are any reports over the coming weeks, accompanied by horrifying, Douma-style images, suggesting a use of chemical weapons, particularly because of how the Government responded after Douma without seeking the approval of the House and without waiting for independent verification of those reports from the OPCW. If that scenario does arise, it may do so over the next month when the House is in recess.
We know from Bob Woodward’s book that what President Trump wants to do in the event of a further reported chemical attack is to commit to a strategy of regime change in Syria—and, indeed, that he had to be prevented from doing so after Douma. That would be a gravely serious step for the UK to take part in, with vast and very dangerous implications not just for the future of Syria, but for wider geopolitical stability.
In light of that, I hope that the Minister will give us two assurances today. First, will he assure us that if there are any reports of chemical weapons attacks, particularly in areas of Idlib controlled by HTS, the Government will not take part in any military action in response until the OPCW has visited those sites, under the protection of the Turkish Government, independently verified those reports and attributed responsibility for any chemical weapons used? Relying on so-called open source intelligence provided by proscribed terrorist groups is not an acceptable alternative. Secondly, if the Government intend to take such action, thus escalating Britain’s military involvement in Syria and risking clashes with Russian and Iranian forces, will the Minister of State guarantee the House that we will be given a vote to approve such action before it takes place, even if that means recalling Parliament?
Alistair Burt
The co-ordinated action that was taken earlier this year with the United States and France was not about intervening in a civil war or regime change; it was a discrete action to degrade chemical weapons and deter their use by the Syrian regime in order to alleviate humanitarian suffering. Our position on the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons is unchanged. As we have demonstrated, we will respond appropriately to any further use by the Syrian regime of chemical weapons, which have had such devastating humanitarian consequences for the Syrian population. The right hon. Lady may recall that there are circumstances, depending on the nature of any attack, in which the United Kingdom Government need to move swiftly and to keep in mind, as their utmost priority, the safety of those personnel involved in a mission. I am not prepared to say at this stage what the United Kingdom’s detailed reaction might be or to give any timescale, because the importance of responding appropriately, quickly and with the safety of personnel in mind will be uppermost in the mind of the United Kingdom.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who has done so much to stand up for the voiceless in this matter. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that there is much that this country can and should do? Only recently the Prime Minister stood where the Minister sits now and talked of the attacks we had faced from Russian chemical weapons. Should we not also stand up to the Russians, who are financing this war, and to banks such as VTB that are trading on our markets and raising debt in this country? Is it not outrageous that these people are allowed to exploit our assets, property and laws to finance a war in Syria that is leaving hundreds of thousands injured and many more millions displaced, and that is fundamentally destabilising not only our interests but those of our partners around the world?
Alistair Burt
Russia has an important role at this stage of what will likely be the end of the formal conflict in Syria. It is taking part in attacks that appear indiscriminate—in relation to targeting civilians—and all the fears are that the civilian damage and humanitarian distress that we have seen in other parts of Syria will be repeated. There is an opportunity to prevent that. The United Kingdom has called on Russia and Iran to do all in their power, with the Syrian regime, to prevent it. This is an opportunity for Russia to step forward, to do what is right on the international stage—even at this stage—and to assist in Syria’s transition to something different. The United Kingdom remains determined to use any diplomatic measures and other sanctions at its disposal to ensure the conduct necessary to provide a more peaceful solution to the troubles in Syria and to end a conflict that has done so much damage.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for his answers and I commend the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for securing the urgent question and for the well-informed and passionate way he set out the background. He reminded us of the humanitarian catastrophe that is happening even as we speak.
May I press the right hon. Gentleman on something about which I asked the Minister for Europe and the Americas on 24 July? When the House voted in December 2015 for military action in Syria, it was in expectation that that would help in the establishment of an interim Government in about six months. Clearly that prediction went badly wrong, and it is not enough for the Government to say, as they did last time, that these predictions are difficult. Will the Minister for the Middle East say what lessons we learning about the reliability, or otherwise, of such predictions, especially if, as now seems might be the case, we are heading towards a scenario where the House is once again asked to give its consent to military action?
Secondly, I welcome the Minister’s mention of something else that I asked about in July: the UK following the lead of others in establishing a national mechanism for the prevention and prediction of, and the rapid response to, mass atrocities, chemical weapons attacks and so on? Will he give us more detail about, or at least an indication of, what he intends to do to keep Members updated and to improve on the response so far?
Finally, given the very clear evidence of the commission of war crimes, does the Minister agree that if there is an all-out, indiscriminate offensive in Idlib, the terrorists there will be able to get away, but the babies—as the Minister said, they outnumber the terrorists—will not? They are the ones who will be left behind to die. In those circumstances, should not such an all-out, indiscriminate offensive be classified as a crime against humanity, because it is clearly designed to cause civilian casualties? Will the Minister give an assurance that the pursuit of all those responsible for war crimes in Syria will also apply to members of the Russian military who are involved, including, if necessary, the commander-in- chief who has given the orders for these atrocities to take place?
Alistair Burt
The processes to try to bring about a political transition in Syria are still going on, led by UN special envoy Staffan de Mistura. Talks are continuing, and have been supplemented, to a degree, by talks that have taken place with those outside the formal process—Turkey, Iran and Russia. Efforts have failed because, on the ground, the regime has been successful, and the cost to it has therefore not been sufficient for it to want to make changes that would bring political reconciliation or political change. Those efforts are still being made through the United Nations. It is clear that a reimposition of the regime in its current form after the conflict is unlikely to bring stability to Syria, and to prevent the opportunity either for extremists to act again or for further civil unrest to occur. If the conflict is to come properly to an end, there will indeed have to be a degree of transition and change in the regime, and that will come through political efforts that are ongoing and will continue.
As for the prediction of events and military attacks, what the United Kingdom has been able to supply—the House will understand that I do not want to go into too much detail—is effectively an early warning system, which can be activated by electronic awareness of potential attacks. It can provide information through social media as well as by more conventional means, which enables people to take evasive action and to hide to the extent that they can. Of course, the best way to avoid civilian casualties is not to employ an early warning system, but to stop the bombing.
That leads me to the issue of war crimes. The designation of a war crime is not a political act, but a judicial act. Certain criteria are clearly laid out through international humanitarian law. There is an independent accountability mechanism—the so-called IIIM—that the United Kingdom is supporting in Syria. It is essential that, at some stage, the world is able to see accountability measures working. If there is impunity, there is injustice, and if there is no accountability, there is impunity. We will work with those systems. Whoever may be liable for war crimes, the United Kingdom will seek to ensure—through international and judicial means—that they are appropriately pursued.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s remarks about chemical weapons. I want to develop the point about the primary and priority targeting of hospitals in Syria—in Idlib, and also during early parts of the civil war—which is one of the most flagrant and obvious violations of the Geneva conventions since the Spanish civil war.
Seven or eight weeks ago, the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and I met 20 Syrian doctors, some of whom had been in hospitals that were bombed 30 times by the regime and its Russian backers. The Minister talked of naming and shaming Syrian military units, but he said nothing about shaming Russian and Iranian units that are involved in the same flagrant breach of the Geneva conventions, along with their command chains. Will he confirm that as well as naming and shaming those Syrian military units, he will name and shame individual Russian and Iranian units, pilots and chains of command?
Alistair Burt
Russia has continued its close military co-operation with the regime in spite of the atrocities that it has committed, including the use of chemical weapons. It has chosen to shield the regime’s use of chemical weapons from international scrutiny. Its repeated blocking of the mandate of the UN-OPCW joint investigative mechanism sent a dangerous signal to the Syrian regime that it could continue to use chemical weapons with impunity.
Russia must change tack. It must end its destructive support for the regime’s military campaign and instead support de-escalation and a political settlement. Of course, when information is available about those who may have taken part in war crimes, the accountability mechanisms that I have mentioned should, and must, come into play.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
As has been said by almost every Member who has spoken today, the bombing of a hospital is a terrible war crime, but it is worse than that: doctors in non-regime areas in Syria, including Idlib, lack basic supplies. The Minister has been working on that, so may I ask him about his conversations with his Turkish counterparts and that of the Prime Minister? Have they been asked to make sure that the route through to Syria stays open, and will they help make sure that no doctor in Syria lacks basic medical supplies to save lives?
Alistair Burt
We have indeed been working extremely hard to try and make sure the supplies are there, and I commend the hon. Lady on her consistent championing ever since the beginning of this business in Syria of the White Helmets, civilian workers and the medical teams who operate there. We have indeed been speaking to Turkey about the efforts that might be made should there first be a movement of population. Turkey recognises that it is the first safe border to the north of the Idlib area and is likely to be called upon to use its resources. We and other international agencies have done what we can to ensure that what is available in the area to support people who are moving will be available. I understand that it is at present still possible to get assistance into Idlib; those humanitarian corridors are still working in a way they did not in other parts of the area. We will do all we can and respond in any way to further pleas for what may be necessary. We are extremely conscious of this, which is why I added £10 million extra on 17 August to the support the UK is giving specifically for medical aid supplies, to make sure they are available to those who need them. Turkey is working extremely hard both diplomatically and practically to try to stop the humanitarian disaster, because as well as preparing for it, we must do all we can to prevent it in the first place.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continued use of the UN Security Council veto by Russia has hampered efforts to prevent atrocities, and how can the UN be reformed so we can avoid this situation in the future?
Alistair Burt
Yes, as we have discussed a number of times in the House, the issue surrounding the Security Council at the moment is quite severe and will be for so long as the major powers use their veto in a manner that prevents action on issues where others are agreed. The power of veto is there for a specific purpose and cannot be gainsaid, but if it is always used to prevent the sort of action the rest of the world deems necessary, there is a risk the Security Council loses the moral authority it seeks to have. As we have seen in places where it has asked for ceasefires and humanitarian access in Syria and been denied, that problem still occurs, so I agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s assurance that Britain will support a robust response should Assad resort to chemical weapons again, but the sad truth is that Syria represents the worst failing of the civilised world since Rwanda and Burundi, after which we said, “Never again,” so does he think that, when all this is over, there may be a case for an inquiry in Britain into how on earth we allowed this to happen?
Alistair Burt
The right hon. Gentleman raises a wider question and the Foreign Affairs Committee published something on it today. Indeed, sitting behind him is one of the members of that Committee, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), brandishing a copy of the report, and I know his feelings about it very clearly, and all of us who were in the House on 29 August 2013 remember the circumstances. It would be wrong to pin the blame for everything that has happened in Syria on such a vote and such actions that were taken at the time. The responsibility for the tragedy of Syria lies fairly and squarely at the hands of Assad, the regime and those who have supported it, and we should look in no other direction. None the less, the question about what needs to be found out is real. I am not sure whether an independent inquiry is the right thing to do; we have been over this many times, but the right hon. Gentleman is right that there are lessons to be learned about how we got where we are, and they are essential because the world cannot go on looking on at these dreadful situations and feel as powerless as often we do.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his kind words and for reiterating the need to ensure that our military personnel are well protected from the disinformation that is being put out across the world. What can be done to stop the reported rise in attacks on medical facilities? Is the international community able to collect evidence so that we can hold to account these barbarians who are killing children and the sick?
Alistair Burt
To date, we have reports of some 37 attacks on medical facilities and health workers. These are being documented and detailed. As has been mentioned, deliberate attacks on such premises are a contravention of international humanitarian law. Every effort will be made, and our work with the accountability mechanisms such as the international, impartial and independent mechanism is designed to provide the necessary evidence, should accountability proceedings be held in the future, as we hope they will be.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Is the Minister able to give an indication of how many Syrians, Russians and Iranians are subject to asset freezes and travel bans and of how many cases are being built against those people for prosecutions for alleged war crimes? Would Mr al-Assad and Mr Putin fall into that category? Finally, would not the biggest contribution that the UK Government could make be to expand the family reunion scheme so that we could support more vulnerable Syrian refugees?
Alistair Burt
The information on who sanctions have been ordered on is public and has been revealed in answers to questions, but I will ensure that it is reissued and made available to the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot remember the number at present. On individual sanctions, we carefully consider for whom they might be most appropriate and what the most effective method might be. What was the right hon. Gentleman’s last point?
Alistair Burt
On reunion, the United Kingdom will see resettled the 20,000 refugees that were accepted by the United Kingdom, and that programme is proceeding well. We have done a great deal to settle people in the area and to see them returned. The big issue at the moment in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey is not sending people to the United Kingdom; it is how safe they will be when they get back to Syria, which is where most of them want to go. There needs to be an adequate programme in relation to that. That is where the focus of our efforts is now, but that can come about only if there is a safe and secure Syria, where certain guarantees have been given by the state so that those who fled will not have reason to flee again.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Idlib is the last major rebel and jihadist stronghold, so this could well be the military endgame as President Assad seeks to finish the job, as he sees it, of re-establishing his regime. I do not know anyone who believes that the rebel forces can possibly win this conflict, so the fighting will end only if they are defeated or killed, or moved out of Idlib. As I understand it, the two main rebel groups are Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and the National Liberation Front. The first is linked to al-Qaeda; the second to Turkey. Can the Minister tell the House whether both groups are being attacked by Syria with its Russian backers? It seems to me that plans need to be put in place to move those rebel fighters out of Idlib. The alternative is that the Syrian forces will go in and defeat and kill them.
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, in which there is an awful lot wrapped up. As I indicated earlier, the assessment by the United States and ourselves is that the extremist terrorist groups in Idlib constitute perhaps 0.5% of the population—a very small number, about 15,000 people. There are other groups fighting against the regime that the United Kingdom does not designate as terrorist groups, although they are so designated by the regime. There may be another 25,000 to 35,000 people involved in those groups. As I said earlier, the number of civilians in the area is much greater than the numbers in either of those two groups.
The possibility remains for those groups to surrender, either to Turkish or UN authorities, but for those who continue to hold out against any peaceful or negotiated end, if that proves impossible, there is little doubt that military action or special operations may become part of the future. It is essential to civilians that that does not happen, because they will inevitably be caught up in such activity if it takes place, so the determination is to try to find a way to negotiate an outcome.
My hon. Friend said that people could go elsewhere, but the problem is that Idlib is the end of the line. It is where people have been brought to now. Whatever the solution, it must be an Idlib solution, and we are pressing all the authorities to do all they can for a negotiated surrender solution, if that is possible, to spare lives. However, the most important thing is that those who have had no contact with extremist groups and the civilians who have been caught up in this should be safe and free from the risk of indiscriminate attacks, which should stop now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I call the man brandishing a report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which he once chaired and of which he remains a distinguished ornament: Mr Mike Gapes.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Select Committee’s unanimously agreed report on “The Responsibility to Protect and Humanitarian Intervention”, published today, says:
“There has been a manifest failure to protect civilians and to prevent mass atrocity crimes in Syria.”
It calls for an independent inquiry to investigate the processes that lead to and the consequences of the Government’s decision not to intervene in Syria. We could have intervened in 2011, with humanitarian corridors and no-fly zones, and the Minister referred to the 2013 debate and others. However, why are we quite happy to hold inquiries when we do intervene, such as with Iraq, but not when we do not intervene? As the Committee points out, the consequences of non-intervention by the international community can be worse than those of intervention.
Alistair Burt
It is obviously too early to give an official response to the Committee’s report, but the hon. Gentleman and I know the circumstances well. There is absolutely nothing to stop a further inquiry by this House into the decisions that were made and why. Indeed, I can remember most of the arguments now. However, he is correct that Syria has demonstrated the consequences of non-intervention in a way that had not been made fully clear before. Many of the political arguments at the time were based on what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I remember the public—it was nine to one—telling Ministers and Members not to do anything.
We now know that there have been consequences of that non-intervention. I do not know what the right forum is to learn still more of that, and I am not sure about the process, but now that the potential damage from non-intervention is established fact, the hon. Gentleman is right that the House needs to consider the consequences of non-intervention as well as intervention. I should add of course that there has been intervention since 2013, just not by the United Kingdom and its allies.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has already spoken about Russia’s gross dereliction of duty in its continued wielding of its veto on the UN Security Council. What can we, the Americans and the French—our allies on the Security Council—do to try to resolve this impasse to save the many thousands of civilian lives that will be lost as a result of this dereliction of duty?
Alistair Burt
Every diplomatic tool is being employed to demonstrate to those currently responsible for actions in Idlib the risk that they are taking—the risk to international humanitarian law, future accountability and the need to avoid both civilian casualties and the use of chemical weapons. That effort is being exercised by the international community as a whole. As I mentioned earlier, the UK was distressed by the fact that a ceasefire and other efforts promoted by the United Kingdom at the UN Security Council last week were not supported by Russia and the Syrian regime.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for all his responses to questions on such an important issue. Can he expand on his response about how and when action will be taken against those commanders who have been found to be responsible for these illicit attacks, for these war crimes? It is not good enough to say that it will happen at some stage. Will he reassure us that no stone will go unturned and that these people will be held to account, and held to account quickly?
Alistair Burt
In all honesty, it would be comforting, both to the House and to the hon. Lady, for me to say what the process will be and that it will be swift and so on, but I do not believe I can say that. Look how long it has taken for there to be accountability for serious crimes at Srebrenica. It depends on the gathering of evidence, and it depends on the willingness of authorities to take part and the willingness of the agencies to bring forward those within their own communities who might have been responsible.
We looked at the Burma fact-finding mission last week, and it is a scar on the world community that it can attribute blame, that it can demonstrate what has happened but that the processes of accountability are incredibly slow. We have done all we can at present to give people the tools they need to collect evidence. The United Kingdom has worked hard to explain to people how they can collect evidence and keep it safe to record crimes, but, ultimately, an accountability mechanism is still needed to bring that forward.
All I was able to say at the United Nations last year, when we moved the resolution on the creation of the accountability mechanism, was that the wheels of justice may grind slow but they grind exceeding small, and they get there. I wish I could say how much quicker it will be, but that tends to be the truth.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I strongly welcome the Minister’s statement that, if Syria should use chemical weapons again, we are ready to act. Is he confident that our allies would stand with us in that endeavour?
Alistair Burt
A joint statement issued by the United States, France and the United Kingdom made it clear that we will respond appropriately to any chemical weapons attack. Nobody wants to do that, and the warning was intended to prevent it, rather than to give an indication of response.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) on the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report. I hope that, at some point soon, we can try to find a way out of this political and intellectual cul-de-sac whereby intervention seems to be seen as, de facto, the bad response and non-intervention as, de facto, the peaceful response. Let us look at the lessons we have to learn from Syria.
I have a specific question for the Minister. Will he update us on the possibility of safe exit and assessment points on the border with Turkey and on assistance with triaging people who have to flee so that we can provide more resettlement, possibly in this country?
Alistair Burt
As I indicated earlier, we are working very closely with Turkey on what the responses would be if a large number of people were to move. Preparations are already in place for the provision of support in safe areas on the Syrian side of the border. Turkey is cautious about a large number of people coming across the border, and we have offered assistance in relation to that. All this is currently being worked out to try to find the best ways in which humanitarian access can be safeguarded and to find how people can be protected. That work is ongoing, and I commit to updating the House whenever anything new is available.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
What difference is UK aid making on the ground in this crisis today?
Alistair Burt
I mentioned this earlier, but I am keen to repeat that the difference we have been able to make is in supplying food, humanitarian assistance and medical assistance to literally millions of people in Syria over a period. Specifically, between January and December 2017, our support in Idlib governorate provided approximately 653,000 people with access to clean drinking water, immunised 1,335,000 children under five, helped 321,000 children access education and provided 398,000 medical consultations. That is just in Idlib; that is the Department for International Development; and that is the United Kingdom’s population getting behind our work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. There is a strong and significant evidential base to show that Assad has given the green light to the gas attacks. I am certain that, as the Minister has said clearly, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is doing everything diplomatically possible to prevent gas attacks, which would have an impact on innocent women and children. As the noose closes around Idlib, what additional aid and practical support will the Minister’s office make available to deal with what will undoubtedly amount to massive casualties?
Alistair Burt
Without going into detail, I say to the hon. Gentleman that whatever preparation can be made is being made. We are conscious of the risk, and as I indicated earlier, we are also conscious of the fact that should there be an attack, disinformation would be spread about it. We want to make every preparation possible to save lives and treat people should it become necessary, and that is certainly being done by providing the supplies that are available in the area.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
What consideration have the Government given to using UK sovereign bases in Cyprus to provide a safe haven for refugees from Idlib?
Alistair Burt
As I indicated earlier, the issue is not necessarily moving people across the sea to areas either in Europe or elsewhere. We have already seen the difficulties of displaced populations. The effort is appropriately directed towards ensuring that people are immediately safe but then that they are returned to a safer Syria. What the area wants is not more refugees, either in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan or elsewhere, but the means and mechanisms for people to be returned to their home areas safely. That will take further negotiation and the absolute commitment of the Syrian regime that people should be safe, so there is a lot to be done. I am not certain that there is any need to evacuate people to UK sovereign bases, because there will be other areas nearby where people would be safer, but it is much easier for people to return to their homes when they have been settled closer to home after displacement than when they have been overseas.
Victims Strategy
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement. Today, the Secretary of State for Justice and I are launching the Government’s victims strategy, which sets out our vision for victims of crime in England and Wales. That vision is of a justice system that supports even more victims to speak up with the certainty that they will be understood, protected and supported, whether or not they report a crime and regardless of their circumstances or background.
However, no single Department, agency or emergency service alone can provide the services that victims rightly expect to receive, as shown by recent major incidents and tragedies such as the Grenfell Tower fire and terrorist attacks in London and Manchester. To truly deliver on our vision, we must all work together. That is why we have today published, for the first time, a cross-Government victims strategy, further delivering on this Government’s commitment to ensure that victims of crime get the support they need.
This strategy is the latest milestone in improving that support for victims and builds on important progress over the past few years under Governments of both parties, such as the establishment of the first code of practice for victims in 2006; the appointment of the first Victims’ Commissioner to champion the interests of victims and witnesses in 2010; and the publication of “Getting it right for victims and witnesses” in 2012, which set out the Government’s approach to ensuring that victims and witnesses get the support they need.
The victims strategy consolidates and builds on that progress but recognises that more still needs to be done. I thank and pay tribute to all the victims, victims’ groups and experts who have willingly shared their experiences and sat on the victims panel, and to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who initiated this work. I also pay tribute to my officials and to my opposite number in the Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), for their work on the strategy. To achieve what we wish to, we must work together.
The nature of crime is changing and we must adapt our response to meet that challenge. Although overall crime has fallen, incidents of some of the most serious crimes have risen. Serious violent crime has increased and the reporting of sexual offending has also risen. In the year ending March 2018, there was a 24% increase in reported sexual offences, compared with the previous year.
The message from victims is clear: they want to be treated with dignity, humanity and compassion; they want clear, timely and accurate information about what is happening with their cases from day one; and they want the opportunity and support to make their voices heard as justice is done. To help to achieve that, the strategy sets out a system-wide response to improving the support offered to all victims of crime, throughout the criminal justice process, and incorporates actions from all criminal justice agencies, including the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts. We must ensure that those who are victims of crime do not become victims of the process.
First, we want to strengthen the victims code and make it fit for the future. Our data tells us that fewer than 20% of victims are even aware of the code. Those who are often find it too lengthy and too confusing, with too many agencies involved. We will therefore revise the code, make it more user-friendly and reduce the number of contact points. We will also strengthen entitlements in key areas such as the victim personal statement and support for victims of mentally disordered offenders. We will test the proposed changes to the code in a public consultation in early 2019, and aim to have a revised code in place by the end of 2019.
We have reaffirmed our manifesto commitment to a victims law. The consultation will consider how best to enshrine victims’ entitlements in law and the detail of the necessary legislation, and it will include boosting the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, who already plays a vital role in holding agencies to account. In that context, I pay particular tribute to Baroness Newlove for all her work over the past six years to promote and protect the interests of victims and witnesses.
The criminal injuries compensation scheme must reflect the changing nature of crime. We will therefore review the entire scheme, with a particular focus on how we treat the victims of child sexual abuse and terrorism. That will include examining eligibility criteria and abolishing the arbitrary and unfair same-roof rule, so that victims can get the compensation that they are rightly due.
From Hillsborough to Grenfell, there have been too many failures properly to support those affected by disasters, so today, in this strategy, we have set out our plans for an independent public advocate, and in tandem we have published a consultation on the detail of that role—supporting bereaved families so that those failures cannot be repeated and so that we can properly support victims from the beginning of a disaster right through to the application of justice and beyond.
Building on the work we commenced earlier this year to improve the parole process, the strategy sets out how we will improve communication and support for victims during what can be for many a difficult time, when memories of crimes committed years ago are relived. We will simplify the victim contact scheme and improve the quality of communication. We will make it easier for victims to make victim personal statements at parole hearings, and we will roll out revised training for victim liaison officers so that they are better equipped and prepared to support victims through parole hearings. That can and should help to ensure that past failings can never be repeated.
The strategy highlights the extra funding that we are providing for victims, including by increasing spending to improve services and pathways for survivors and victims of sexual violence and abuse. That spending includes £8 million on interventions to ensure that support is available to children who witness domestic abuse. Other measures include improved training for the police, including guidance on supporting victims through the interview process and collecting evidence; the trialling of body-worn cameras for taking victim personal statements, so that victims have a choice in how their story is heard; and expanding support for families bereaved by gang violence. The recent spate of gang-related violence, particularly in London, has shone a spotlight on the devastation that gun and knife crime can cause to families. We will also bring in new funding for advocacy support for those affected by domestic homicide. New guidance on pre-trial therapy to reduce the perception that it will damage the prosecution case will also be brought forward.
In developing the strategy, we have engaged extensively with victims, victims’ groups and the Victims’ Commissioner. That has ensured that the strategy is informed by those who have had direct experience of being a victim, as well as by those with frontline expertise who have supported them.
This strategy is not a quick fix. It is about building on the work to date so that we can better support victims in the future. It is also about giving them the confidence that, no matter their background, their individual circumstances, or the crime that has been committed against them, the support they need will be there.
This is the first time that we have looked in such detail and in such a joined-up way at how we treat victims in the wake of crime. This strategy is a marker for the way we should see ourselves as a nation—one that offers dignity, empathy and compassion to people when they are at their most vulnerable. It is something on which there is broad consensus across this House. On this agenda, the Opposition have, in my experience, always been constructive and positive in their engagement with the Government and I hope that that constructive approach will continue as we deliver the strategy.
Delivery of the strategy will now commence in earnest, as we continue to progress towards a system that supports even more victims to speak up by giving them the certainty that they will be understood, supported and protected throughout their journey. I commend this statement to the House.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
Any progress to help victims is welcome, but the only thing that will cut the mustard when it comes to strengthening victims’ rights is primary legislation and for that we are still waiting. We are still waiting for the delivery of the promise made by the Tories in 2015 that they would enshrine key entitlements for victims and witnesses in primary legislation. They mysteriously stopped making specific references to passing primary legislation just a year later. When Labour repeatedly pressed them on whether they still planned to do so, we received a series of fudges, talking about strategies and non-legislative options.
It has taken three years for the Government to produce the strategy that has finally been unveiled today. Why so many mentions of consultation—“consult” on a revised victims’ code, “consult” on a victims’ law, and “consult” on the establishment of an independent public advocate? We have consulted all this to death over the past three years, and have heard loud and clear from all quarters that these things are vital and urgently needed. Labour has campaigned on this for years. Have we not had long enough to talk about this? I would like to hear from the Minister just how much longer we will have to wait and why we have to wait.
We welcome the potential for improving court environments with victim-friendly waiting areas and an emphasis on accessibility for the most vulnerable, but with more than 230 court closures since 2010 many vulnerable people cannot get to the court anyway. Victims having to travel for hours on several different buses will hardly have the calmest start to their court visit, even if they have a more suitable waiting area when they do arrive.
There are measures that aim to provide more support for victims of major disasters such as Grenfell; the Minister alluded to that and we know it is currently lacking. Judicial review is a key tool for victims of tragedies to be able to challenge unjust or unlawful decisions by the state or other public bodies. Labour has committed to restoring legal aid for judicial review. Will the Government now do likewise?
The Government say that an independent public advocate would help to guide bereaved families through any investigative process after a disaster
“so their voices can be heard at inquest.”
However, that is misleading. Although the title includes the term “advocate”, the official will not represent bereaved families at inquiries or inquests. When will the Minister provide advocates to help victims to navigate a complex and intimidating system and lawyers for bereaved families at inquests? The document released today concedes that there is “some potential for confusion”. That is not good enough for victims who are seeking clarity.
Let us be very clear: from a victim’s point of view, our justice system is not fit for purpose. For too long, victims have felt like an afterthought in the criminal justice process. The Government can produce all the strategy documents in the world but victims need action now.
There is no indication of how the Government intend to fund some of the positive measures in the strategy, measures that Labour has been calling for—raising the amount for survivors and victims of sexual violence and abuse from £31million to £39 million; £8 million for children who witness domestic abuse; and £18.8 million on domestic abuse accommodation services in England. That is all crucial, but will the Minister tell us where the money will come from? Victims may well not have confidence that anything in these measures is being properly funded, given the Tories’ failure to fund the female offenders strategy, which their own advisers say was underfunded by at least £15 million.
Just today, we heard the president of the Police Superintendents’ Association say that policing will be in a “perpetual state of crisis” if the Government do not lay out a long-term vision for the stretched service. The entire justice system is crippled. It is time for the Tories to do as they promised and speed up the urgent work of creating a robust victims’ law. Victims cannot wait for another year.
Edward Argar
I welcome much of the content and tone of the hon. Lady’s comments. I am sure she will be extremely pleased to see the reaffirmed commitment to the consultation on the legislation to underpin this. She said that it has taken three years for the Government to produce a strategy. Well, I have been the Minister for three months and I hope that she is encouraged that I have published the strategy, in which that is clearly set out.
The hon. Lady is right that the victims code is very important but we do need the ability for victims to enforce and monitor that and the legislation underpinning it. We are consulting on that, which is the right thing to do. She asked about timescales. I pay tribute to her colleague, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), for his work in this area. He and I have discussed this on many occasions.
The hon. Lady asked when this would happen. As I set out, we will be consulting on the independent public advocate from today. So there is action, which will be followed by consideration of that and steps forward. Consultation will follow on the criminal injuries compensation scheme and the consultation on the revised victims code and the necessary legislation underpinning it will come in 2019. Although I understand that the hon. Lady may be a little frustrated by consultations, I am very clear that what we are doing is hugely important and it is right that we consult widely, particularly with the victims of crime and others, who know best what will work for them in this context. Therefore, although I take her point, I make no apologies for the consultation; it is important that we get this absolutely right. It is also right that we ensure that people have access to justice, and this Government have a strong track record of ensuring continued access to justice.
The hon. Lady highlighted the money and the financing. As she will know, already, taken together, around £200 million is spent across Government and different agencies on supporting victims of crime. We seek with this strategy to ensure that that money is better spent, and better joined up in the way it is spent, to deliver the outcomes that victims of crime want and that this strategy is designed to deliver. This document is a very clear statement of intent by this Government, delivering on a clear commitment from this Government to support victims of crime.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
But are we planning to continue to let victims down by persisting with inadequate sentencing and early release?
Edward Argar
Although I have the hugest respect for my right hon. Friend, I believe that this Government and previous Governments have a strong track record of supporting the victims of crime and that this strategy builds on that strong track record. As he will be aware, sentencing is a matter for our independent judiciary, and the Government always ensure that it has at its disposal a range of options to consider when sentencing an individual.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I also thank the Minister for taking the time to provide a copy of the statement in advance.
This matter is devolved, and I want to talk a bit about what the Scottish Government are doing in this regard. The Scottish Parliament’s Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 ensures that victims and witnesses have legal protection in primary legislation. Our own victims code was published in 2016, ensuring that justice agencies, including the police, the Crown, the courts and the Parole Board publish and report on shared standards regarding how victims are supported and on how those standards are being met. It is important to note that legislative context.
In Scotland, we are looking at improving the availability of information to victims by reviewing the victim notification scheme and consulting on how victims can best input into parole hearings. This is part of our programme for Government for this year. In relation specifically to homicide, Scotland is looking at developing a new model of victim-centred support, beginning with the Homicide Service but looking at other services after that. What work is being done, with regard to things that are being done in Scotland and the way that they are working, to ensure that lessons are learned about whether they would be applicable down here and could be broadened out to happen here as well?
Thinking about what happened in the Grenfell Tower tragedy, what action is the Minister taking to ensure that victims’ voices are heard before a tragedy occurs, rather than afterwards, so that things like the horrendous tragedy at Grenfell can be stopped before they happen?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she said and for her tone. She is absolutely right—this is a devolved matter. Although it is devolved, and while I may not agree with everything that the Scottish Government do or all the policies they put forward, I assure her that in drawing up this strategy we have taken great heed of what is done in Scotland and looked at what the Scottish Government do. There is no reason to be dogmatic about these things. Where there is good practice elsewhere that may be applicable, we are always happy to look at it, and my officials have been looking at what is done in Scotland. Indeed, as the Minister in the Department who has responsibility for devolved Administrations, I take a particularly close interest.
In respect of reporting and shared standards, the hon. Lady will see in the strategy that we believe that transparency is extremely important. We set out our plans to consult not only on an expanded role and expanded powers for the Victims Commissioner, in holding people and criminal justice system bodies to account, but on an increased role for police and crime commissioners to monitor compliance in their local areas with the code and what is being done, and to send those reports upwards to the Criminal Justice Board and ultimately to me as a Minister.
In respect of Grenfell and what happened before the tragedy, I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I am a little cautious in going into that while the inquiry is still going on. However, I believe that the IPA will play an extremely important role in ensuring that victims’ voices are heard.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. This really is a great day for victims. There is much to be very pleased with in the statement and the document that joins it. Let me focus on the same-roof rule—an issue on which I have been campaigning for many years. I was particularly pleased with the change to that rule in a world in which most sex offenders are known to their victims. This is very important. Will he give us greater detail as to when it is likely that the change will come into effect?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is quite right to highlight the importance of this change. She has campaigned very strongly on this issue, as has the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). Only recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) highlighted the very important campaigning of his constituent, Alissa Moore, on this issue and the huge impact that that has had on bringing about change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) asks about timescales. We will be responding to IICSA, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which plays into this agenda, but at this stage we anticipate that we will be looking to consult early in 2019.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and say how much there is in it that is really warmly to be welcomed. I think it will get strong support from the agencies outside, from the voluntary organisations, and across this House. I commend his approach in dealing with it cross-departmentally. I share the concern of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister: we look forward to this proceeding to legislation.
May I put to the Minister an issue that has been omitted—victims in rape cases who, when they are in the witness box, are, in effect, put on trial by being cross-examined about their previous sexual history? Everyone in the House agrees that that should not happen. A defendant dragging out the victim’s previous sexual activity in order to besmirch her reputation to the jury or to intimidate her out of giving evidence in the first place should not happen, but unfortunately, the law to protect victims from that is not working.
I know that the Minister will be able to get wise counsel from the Solicitor General and the Attorney General, and I know of enthusiastic commitment of the Minister for Women to justice for rape victims. If the Minister does not add this to the strategy, it will be a glaring omission, so will he include in his very commendable approach tackling this injustice?
Edward Argar
The right hon. and learned Lady has long been a doughty campaigner on this and many other important issues, and I pay tribute to her work. She is right that this is not explicitly in the victims strategy. I and my fellow Ministers, including the Solicitor General, have heard her make her point eloquently and forcefully, and we will reflect carefully on what she said.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
We have found that most victims want to play a strong role in parole. How will the Minister make victims’ statements more comprehensive for that purpose and give them a role in the parole system?
Edward Argar
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He has raised that issue previously, particularly in his work as a member of the Justice Committee. He will be encouraged to hear that there are a number of references to the operation of the Parole Board in the strategy, and we will see later this year the Government’s response to the consultation about the operation of the Parole Board. On his specific point, the strategy sets out how the Parole Board will move towards a presumption that victims can, if they wish, read out a victim personal statement in that process.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. Many of the promises the Government are making today have cross-party support. I am sure the Minister will recognise that without adequate funding to put them into practice, many of those promises will be empty. In the 50 pages of the victims strategy, I counted what looked like a commitment to £60 million of new funding. Is that it, or is there any extra funding, to make sure that we are not just legislating but doing?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words and the tone with which he approaches this important issue. As I set out in response to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), around £200 million of funding has already been spent on supporting victims of crime throughout the system. We believe that that can be better spent by joining it up more effectively and spending it in ways that reflect what victims say they need. The right hon. Gentleman will also see in the strategy a commitment, for example, to an additional £8 million to support children who have witnessed domestic abuse and domestic violence. That funding is already secured.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to what I believe is his first statement at the Dispatch Box. He has certainly set the bar high for his many future statements.
The Minister probably noted yesterday that the police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall, Alison Hernandez, spoke out about her own experience of being a victim in an abusive relationship over two years. Would he give us a bit more detail about what role he sees police and crime commissioners playing in supporting victims, particularly when some, such as my own, have personal experiences of abusive relationships?
Edward Argar
I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend’s police and crime commissioner. She was incredibly brave to speak out, and by doing so, she has helped to make it a little bit easier for others to feel confident to speak out. I pay huge tribute to her for that.
As I highlighted earlier, we see an increased role for police and crime commissioners in this process, particularly in monitoring and ensuring compliance with the victims code in their local areas and improving transparency around that. Police and crime commissioners are probably the part of the criminal justice system who know their areas and localities best. I pay tribute to them for their work and believe that they have a huge amount more to contribute in this area.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I really welcome today’s announcement of a system-wide approach to supporting victims. I particularly welcome the review into the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which seems to be focused on re-traumatising victims rather than supporting them. A recent study from University College London showed that 80% of 13 to 17-year-old girls who were sexually assaulted went on to exhibit mental health issues within five months. Rape Crisis has a waiting list of 6,000, and Rotherham Abuse Counselling Service has a waiting list of 260. To address this, will the Minister consider committing, as part of the victims strategy, to placing early support for victims of crime on a statutory footing?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution. As I said earlier, I pay particular tribute to her for the work she has done both in her constituency and in this House as a strong champion of the need to ensure that the support we offer, particularly through the criminal injuries compensation scheme, adapts to reflect the changing nature of the crimes the victims of which it is seeking to support. I know she will welcome the commitment to review the whole operation of the criminal injuries compensation scheme—eligibility, timescales for claims and of course the issues about the same-roof rule. She asked a specific question, and I am very happy to meet her to discuss it in more detail, whether in the context of this piece of work—this strategy—or, more broadly, about the consultation next year. I am happy, as ever, to meet her to talk about it.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
May I commend the strategy, and indeed the way in which my hon. Friend has delivered it? The strategy calls on everyone to work together, and it rightly puts the victim first. Will my hon. Friend offer further details about the trials of body cameras for victims, which he mentioned, because I can think of nothing worse than having to relive the crime in giving evidence? How will body cameras help victims in delivering evidence?
Edward Argar
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. There will be a trial of body cameras for giving a personal statement, which we believe has the potential to make a real difference. It means that victims will be able to give such testimony in a way that is as comfortable for them as possible in the circumstances, and it will minimise the need for them to have to do exactly what she says, which is having to relive the crime a number of times.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
One of the most depressing elements of a violent crime is that, quite often, the victim has to live with the damage for a long time afterwards. In particular, many young men who have been hit on the head have traumatic brain injuries from which they have never managed to recover because there has not been proper rehabilitation support. Will the Minister work very closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that we have neurorehabilitation prescriptions, so that justice is brought to those victims because they can properly recuperate?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and I want to reassure him. As I look around the Chamber, I see my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell. I paid tribute to him earlier, and I pay particular tribute to him for initiating this work and for working with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that we have a strong relationship. I regularly meet my opposite number, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). We have met to discuss this strategy, and I am very happy to discuss with her the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Given that the Minister said that £200 million a year is spent on support for victims, it is simply staggering, 12 years after it was first introduced, that only one in five victims are actually aware that the victims code exists. May I ask the Minister what demonstrable difference and what demonstrable improvements have been made to the judicial experience of victims and witnesses since the Victims’ Commissioner was first appointed in 2010?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and highlights the issue of awareness of the victims code. The fact that 20% of victims say they know about it and that 80% do not cite it does not, in and of itself, mean that the code is a bad thing. I believe that it means that we need to do more to promote awareness of it. We need to make it simpler, which is exactly what we are planning to do. We are actually planning—dare I use these words? —to simplify it almost to the point of being a pledge card that, up front and in very simple terms, will show victims what their entitlements are. We continue to develop and strengthen the victims code, just as we continue to make both the court experience and the support available to victims, pre and post-trial, better.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Liane Singleton was brutally murdered in 1998 by Paul Stowers. Her parents—my constituents Jacky and Gordon Singleton—have been trying to prevent the release of Stowers, including by petitioning this House two months ago. Today they found out that they have failed. They felt dreadfully let down by the criminal justice system, and totally powerless to influence the Parole Board. What difference will today’s announcement make to Jacky and Gordon? Can the Minister give them any reassurance?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who I know has highlighted this issue before. Her constituents are lucky to have her championing their cause as their Member of Parliament. It would be wrong of me to go into the details of that specific case on the Floor of the House, but I can say that the Parole Board will be taking steps to ensure that there is a presumption that a victim’s personal statement can be read in hearings. We will have made changes to the victim contact scheme by the end of 2019, and we will have rolled out new training for victim liaison officers by the end of 2018.
On the hon. Lady’s broader point, we have consulted on the detail of a mechanism for the reconsideration of parole decisions in certain circumstances. The consultation ran until the end of July, as she will be aware. We are carefully considering all the responses and will set out our next steps later this year. We are also carrying out a full review of all the Parole Board’s rules, which will be completed by the end of this year. I will be happy to meet the hon. Lady once those reviews are completed, if that would be helpful.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The £8 million to support interventions for children who have witnessed domestic abuse is to be welcomed. Can the Minister assure me that conversations are being held with the charities, which are often best placed to provide that support?
Edward Argar
I can give my hon. Friend exactly that assurance. I am grateful for the work that many charities have done to help us to prepare the strategy, and I look forward to them continuing to play a central role as we deliver it.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The independent advocate for major tragedies is an important and welcome development. Given the Minister’s announcement today, could he indicate the proposed budget for that position?
Edward Argar
The right hon. Gentleman, a former holder of the office I now hold—if rather more senior and distinguished—is absolutely right to highlight that important role. We have launched the consultation on the independent public advocate today, in parallel with the publication of the strategy. We will await the results of the consultation to see exactly how the scope and nature of that role is determined, which will of course then inform the funding required.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
One of my constituents who was abused as a child was told not to make a claim from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority because it might prejudice the trial, but the trial took so long that by the end of the process, she was out of time. Will the Minister’s changes to the criteria for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority be retrospective?
Edward Argar
With regard to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, we have announced a review that covers eligibility and timescales. The hon. Lady highlights something that is an issue in some cases, particularly those involving child sexual abuse, because often the individual is not ready or able to bring forward a claim, either because of their age or because of the trauma they are still suffering. All those factors will be considered in the review.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Victims expect us to make the best possible use of risk assessment and management schemes. Obviously there is much in this strategy announcement to commend, but I wish to be a bit picky and ask the Minister whether he will meet me—this was part of my previous job—and/or other experts in the field who know far more than me, to discuss how to make the best possible use of the latest and best-tested risk assessment and management schemes.
Edward Argar
It is always a pleasure to meet the hon. Lady, and I will be happy to do so again on this occasion.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
We know that the people who are most vulnerable to crime are those furthest from mainstream services. It is the woman suffering at the hands of her partner, the trafficked person who does not speak English or the child groomed in their community who the consultations detailed today must reach. Who do the Government intend to engage with to ensure that the voice of those who are heard the least is properly involved in this process?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. The aim of the strategy is to ensure that all those who are victims of crime, irrespective of background or any other factor, can access the support they need. We have worked extremely closely with not only individual victims of crime and experts in the field, but a wide variety of groups, covering individuals from all backgrounds and all ethnicities, on what they want to see in the strategy. I will continue to work extremely closely with them as we implement it. I am, of course, always happy receive suggestions from the hon. Gentleman.
Points of Order
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Thursday 6 September, the Minister for Disabled People released the Government’s response to the UN committee report on the Government’s implementation of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. The committee expressed serious concerns that many articles of the convention were being breached and gave recommendations for its implementation. Given the importance of the convention in promoting and protecting the rights of disabled people, the House should have the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s response. Could you therefore advise me, Mr Speaker, on how to ensure that this House has the opportunity to fully scrutinise the Government on this matter?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. If the Government decide it is appropriate to make an oral statement, a Minister comes to the House for the purpose of doing so; otherwise material tends to be communicated in written form. The Government’s response is a matter for the Government, not for the Chair. The Minister for Disabled People provided a written statement on this matter on Thursday, stating that she would place in the Library a copy of a report and letter the Government submitted to the United Nations outlining the UK’s progress. In summary, if the hon. Lady is dissatisfied with the Government’s response or the UK’s progress—or, conceivably, with both—there is a range of avenues that she might wish to pursue that ordinarily would involve a journey to, or other contact with, the Table Office. I will leave it to her and her legendary perspicacity to decide what means to seek to bring greater attention to this issue.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may recall granting an urgent question on 23 July on foreign fighters and the death penalty. The key issue at the time was why the Government had decided not to seek assurances about the potential use of the death penalty before assisting United States authorities in two specific cases regarding foreign fighters to whom we had denied British nationality. The Security Minister suggested that this had happened previously, but the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) asked:
“When was the last time that we departed from these principles”,
as he said he was not aware of it ever having happened before. When the Minister gave no answer to that question, I asked again:
“when did the Government last choose not to seek such assurances?”
I also asked him to write to all of us. The Security Minister said:
“I will write to hon. Members and let them know on how many occasions we have done that.”
He added:
“It will be for their summer reading.”—[Official Report, 23 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 730-731.]
I do not know if you, Mr Speaker, have had a letter on this matter. I know the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield has not had a letter regarding this matter. I have not had a letter, and I presume that no other Member of the House has received a letter, so I just wonder what advice you could give me on the precise meaning of the word “summer” in the sentence,
“It will be for their summer reading.”
It is almost two months since the Minister could have sent us a reply. I have a sneaking suspicion that he is trying to get away with not bothering to inform us that there have actually never been any such instances in the past. If so, he would be much better off, would he not, just coming to the House to tell us?
Mr Speaker
The concluding thought of the hon. Gentleman is uncharitable, but may nevertheless be justified. If that is the ambition of the Minister, I fear that it is destined to be frustrated, not least as a result of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. In summary, if a Minister errs, and to err is human, it is the responsibility of that Minister to put the record straight, preferably sooner rather than later. I do not regard myself as the arbiter of what constitutes summer, but if Members are told that something is going to be for their summer reading, the ordinary interpretation of such an assurance is that it will be available to Members to read during the period of the summer recess. Clearly, that has not happened in this case. I hope that the Minister will correct the record ere long, failing which I predict, with complete confidence, that the matter will come to be aired perhaps more fully on the Floor of the House.
Yemen
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
In a moment I will call Stephen Twigg 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 up to three minutes in which to make his application.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I seek leave to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely recent developments in Yemen.
August was one of the deadliest months of the Yemen conflict, with an estimated 1,000 civilian deaths. On 9 August, for example, a coalition airstrike hit a bus, killing 40 children and 16 adults. Last week, a further 22 women and children were killed after an airstrike on the port city of Hodeidah. Last month, all parties in the conflict, the Houthis and the coalition, were condemned by the UN Panel of Experts on Yemen. The panel cited violations of international law by both sides in Yemen and reached the conclusion that those violations may amount to war crimes.
There remains some hope that the resumption of the Geneva peace talks might help to de-escalate tensions and put Yemen back on a path to peace. However, the talks were suspended last week after the failure of the Houthi delegation to turn up. The United Kingdom has an opportunity, as an influencer in the region, to bring the two sides together for meaningful talks on resolving the crisis.
The House has a good record of debating the Yemen conflict, with strong cross-party support. I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who have repeatedly brought this issue to the attention of the House, as well as to the hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Dundee West (Chris Law) for their support for my application today.
This conflict has already cost more than 10,000 lives and created a humanitarian crisis. Over the next month, the United Nations Human Rights Council and General Assembly both meet. A debate this week would enable the House to consider the latest developments in Yemen and to press for progress on all fronts—diplomatic, humanitarian and political.
Mr Speaker
I have listened carefully to the application from the hon. Gentleman. I am satisfied that the matter is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?
Application agreed to.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has obtained the leave of the House. I can advise the House that the debate will be held tomorrow, Tuesday 11 September, as the first item of public business. The debate will last for up to three hours and it will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the hon. Gentleman’s application.
Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Suella Braverman)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered legislating for the withdrawal agreement.
It is a great pleasure to open this debate. The Government published the White Paper on legislating for the withdrawal agreement in July, and the Secretary of State made a statement subsequently. Over the summer, we have made further progress in the negotiations, and the vast majority of the withdrawal agreement has now been agreed. Progress has been made across a range of outstanding separation issues. At the same time, we continue to work on backstop arrangements to deal with issues relating to the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Let me reiterate: it is unacceptable for a customs border to be drawn along the Irish sea, as that would be a direct threat to the territorial integrity of this country.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On borders, can the Minister enlighten us? What passport queues will British citizens arriving in France, Germany and Spain next year use—EU ones or non-EU ones—and what passport queues will EU citizens use coming into the UK?
Suella Braverman
As the hon. Gentleman will hear in my speech, we are proposing an implementation period from March 2019 until the end of 2020 under which our immigration and customs rules will continue to operate broadly as they do now. I hope that that satisfies him.
Suella Braverman
I will make some progress, and if the hon. Gentleman still has outstanding questions, he can raise them with me later.
The House will be aware that the Government have also taken steps to prepare for the unlikely event of being unable to reach a deal with the EU and have published a series of technical notices to inform people, businesses and stakeholders of the steps they would need to take in this event. We do not want a no deal outcome; the Government’s priority is to achieve a deal with the EU, and I remain confident that a deal that the House can support is within our reach. That is what I am here to discuss today.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Minister says that the Government have published notices. Last week, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union told us in this House that the medicine notices covered stockpiling. I looked at them and could see no reference to stockpiling. In which notice is the stockpiling of medicines set out?
Suella Braverman
I gently remind the hon. Lady that no deal planning and the technical notices are not the subject of this debate. We are here to talk about the contents of the White Paper published before the recess, which covers the implementation period, the proposals for EU citizens and the financial settlement. That is what I am here to talk about, and I ask her gently to keep to the subject of the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Suella Braverman
I am going to proceed.
The EU withdrawal agreement Bill is a vital part of our exit. Its purpose is simple: to implement the agreement we reach with the EU in domestic law. It is the means by which we will protect the rights of EU citizens in this country, pay the negotiated financial settlement and enter into an implementation period that is strictly time limited to prepare for the future relationship. If Parliament votes in favour of the deal, we will introduce the withdrawal agreement Bill to give the withdrawal agreement domestic legal effect.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has asked us to focus on the subject of the debate, and she has just mentioned the supposed deal to be put to Parliament. Can she explain how on earth that deal will proceed, given that 80, supposedly, of her own colleagues—including members of her own European Research Group, such as her former ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), and others—have said that they will vote against it? Is not the reality that the Prime Minister’s Chequers deal is dead, that we are heading for a disastrous no deal and that that is exactly why we need a people’s vote on the deal?
Suella Braverman
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about a second referendum—it would be a complete betrayal of the voters, because we had that exercise and it was two years ago—and I am optimistic that we will strike a mutually beneficial free trade agreement with the EU that honours the result of the referendum, retains the territorial integrity of our country and enables a smooth withdrawal from the EU.
Several hon. Members rose—
Suella Braverman
I will make some progress and then come back to hon. Members.
If Parliament votes in favour of the deal, we will introduce the withdrawal agreement Bill to give the withdrawal agreement domestic legal effect. Any parliamentarian who is truly committed to delivering the people’s decision to leave the EU will, I believe, find cause to vote in favour of the Bill. The final content of the Bill will, of course, be subject to the outcome of the ongoing negotiations. We intend to introduce it as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded and the deal has been approved by Parliament.
The Bill will need to be given Royal Assent before exit day if it is to give effect to the withdrawal agreement. It is precisely because this window of passage is constrained that we have published the White Paper. We want to maximise Parliament’s ability to express its views on the Bill, and that includes the period before its introduction.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Would the Bill need to be passed completely unamended? If an amendment were passed, would the British Government have to go back and renegotiate with the European Union?
Suella Braverman
The Bill will be introduced after Parliament has approved the terms of the final deal with the “meaningful vote”. In that context, the Bill will have a normal passage, like all other legislation. Of course, the views of parliamentarians will be welcome. The Bill can be amended, voted on and scrutinised in the normal way, but it will always be set in the context of Parliament’s approval of the final deal, which includes approval of the withdrawal agreement. Members will, I know, have taken the time over the summer recess to review this substantial document at greater length. Views and questions will have matured and crystallised, and I am therefore delighted to return to the topic today and listen to those views.
The Government’s objective in publishing the White Paper was to set out how we intend to legislate for the parts of the withdrawal agreement that have already been settled in negotiations: those relating to citizens’ rights, the implementation period and the financial settlement.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
My hon. Friend has just referred to what has been agreed so far. Am I right in understanding that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and that that remains an important principle?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. When I say that we have reached agreement with the EU on those sections—citizens’ rights, implementation and the financial settlement—I am talking about the legal text of the withdrawal agreement, which is in the form of a draft international treaty. Members will be familiar with the screeds of text that have been shaded in green. Progress has been made since the March European Council, which indicates agreement on the legal text and substance between the EU and the UK.
It would not have been appropriate for the White Paper to attempt to cover the parts of the withdrawal agreement on which negotiations have yet to be concluded. We will seek to keep Parliament informed as we make further progress, but let me make it clear that the withdrawal agreement Bill will be the primary means by which we give effect to the agreement, including any backstop arrangements for Northern Ireland and Ireland.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that to help these very difficult negotiations with the EU, which does not like the Chequers proposals, it would be an extremely good idea, as a matter of urgency, to publish our tariff schedules for no deal, so that the EU can see what it would look like and so that those of us who want import substitution will know that they have a better opportunity?
Suella Braverman
I share my right hon. Friend’s passion for the prospect of our country’s leaving the EU and our prospects outside the EU, and he has considerable expertise on this issue. I hope that he will be heartened by the technical notices that have been published over the summer, which take a step forward in setting out how our preparations are evolving in relation to that aspect of a no deal outcome.
The Government are committed to working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the Bill works for all parts of the UK. The Joint Ministerial Committee on EU negotiations has already discussed proposals for the Bill, and I look forward to continued engagement in the run-up to the Bill’s introduction and throughout its passage. Engagement has been constructive and positive, and we expect and intend that to continue.
We have also begun engagement with organisations and individuals on the Bill over the summer. I have held roundtables with academics, legal practitioners and civil society organisations, and I look forward to further engagement with a range of representative bodies this week. We will continue to work closely with all interested stakeholders to make sure that we get the legislation right, and I look forward to further hearing the views of Members tomorrow.
Let me now turn to the detail of the White Paper. Part 2 of the withdrawal agreement and chapter 2 of the White Paper set out the arrangements for EU citizens living in the UK and for UK nationals residing in the EU. A key step in the provision of a smooth and orderly exit from the EU is the provision of certainty for those individuals and their families. That is why reaching an agreement on citizens’ rights was the UK’s first priority in negotiating its withdrawal.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
If no withdrawal agreement is reached, there will be no protection of citizens’ rights. Does the Minister agree that she should take the lead from Labour and remove citizens’ rights from the negotiations and instead make sure these rights will be protected regardless of the final withdrawal decision?
Suella Braverman
For this Government to take Labour’s lead on anything to do with Brexit would be a serious derogation of our duty, because Labour does not have a plan and would completely let down this country if it was in charge of Brexit negotiations.
We have prioritised the position of EU citizens from day one of these negotiations. This agreement will safeguard these rights, and the withdrawal agreement will be the primary means by which the rights of EU citizens will be underpinned in the UK. Once enshrined in UK law, this agreement will give certainty to citizens on residency, access to healthcare, pensions and other benefits, so that EU citizens will continue to be able to live their lives broadly as they do today. Our message to EU citizens is clear: “We value you; we thank you for your contribution to our country, and we want you to stay.”
Central to the citizens’ rights agreement is the right for EU citizens to continue living in this country: EU citizens lawfully residing in the UK at the end of the implementation period will be able to stay, and I welcome the fact that, since the publication of the White Paper, the EU settlement scheme is now being piloted in the north-west of England. This is an important step in delivering certainty to individuals and their families currently living in the country.
The Bill will ensure that EU citizens can rely on the rights set out in the withdrawal agreement and can enforce them in UK courts. It will also establish an independent monitoring authority to oversee the UK’s implementation of the citizens’ rights deal, thereby providing further reassurance for citizens that their rights will be protected.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The Minister seems to be saying that everything is certain and everything is sorted out and EU citizens should be reassured. Why then do EU citizens living in my constituency tell me that they do not feel so reassured? Could it possibly be the case that the Minister’s engagements over the summer did not include meeting EU citizens living in this country?
Suella Braverman
Of course I am saddened to hear that, but I do feel that the Government have put this on the record, made it very clear and carried out extensive outreach with diaspora groups and EU citizens’ representative bodies and have worked with our opposite numbers on the continent to ensure that both citizens residing in the EU and those in the UK affected by this are aware of their situations and what their rights are going forward.
The Bill, and the resulting piece of UK law, will cover only the arrangements applying to EU citizens in the UK; it is for the EU and its member states to implement these arrangements as they relate to UK nationals living in the EU. But let me reassure the House and the 800,000 UK nationals who have chosen to make their lives in other EU countries that both the UK Government and the Commission are clear that providing certainty for citizens is a priority. Once fully agreed, the withdrawal agreement will become part of EU law, and the reciprocal commitments and safeguards we have agreed with the EU regarding UK nationals will be upheld through legislation in member states.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Does the Minister share my hope and expectation that responsible Members would take every opportunity to reassure EU citizens living in our constituencies that there is a secure future for them living and working in this country?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Prime Minister herself has said, “We value your contribution; we thank you for your presence in this country; and we want you to stay,” and I am not quite sure which part of that Opposition Members fail to understand.
Under the withdrawal agreement, any administrative procedures introduced for UK nationals are required to be smooth, transparent and simple, to avoid unnecessary administrative burdens. The Government are working closely with the European Commission and individual member states to confirm the processes that will be in place. We will also be running an information campaign to let UK nationals know of any changes—for example, in how they should access services—and I would recommend that all UK nationals resident in the EU sign up for exit-related updates on gov.uk. They can also find a country-specific living-in guide for their member state of residence.
I should like to turn now to the implementation period. The Government are committed to providing certainty—
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way before she goes on to her next paragraph. I want to ask a question about family rights. Quite rightly, EU citizens have asked, “If my mother is very ill, could she come to the United Kingdom to be looked after?” Can the Minister give us clarification on the question of elderly parents who wish to join their children here in the UK who are currently EU citizens?
Suella Braverman
I encourage the hon. Lady to read the contents of the White Paper, which sets out in extensive detail the exhaustive and wide-ranging provisions covering EU citizens. Any Member who has constituents who are worried or anxious should please direct them to that document. It is agreed with the EU, and it sets out the basis of the immigration status and people’s access to benefits, pensions and healthcare. It should go far in reassuring constituents such as the hon. Lady’s that EU citizens who are currently in this country have the right to stay under the provisions that are agreed and set out clearly in plain English in this document.
Stephen Doughty
I want to ask the Minister a specific question. She talks about the assurances that have been given and why so many people are worried. There are 3.5 million EU citizens in the UK, not including any other family members. The Home Office has told the Home Affairs Committee that the app for registering will be available only on Android and will not be available for iPhones, which half the people in this country use, and that the biometric permits, which are already seriously delayed in the Home Office, are being printed on the same printers that the DVLA uses and are miles behind. How on earth can EU citizens have any confidence, when the Government have not made even the basic practical provisions for registering and for ensuring that those people can get their documentation?
Suella Braverman
That is precisely why the Home Office is leading a pilot of the settlement scheme in the north-west as we speak, to identify what is working for people and what is not. So far, that is proving to be successful and showing that there is a good uptake of the scheme, but of course it is still in its pilot stage. The Home Office is very much in dialogue with the people who are directly affected, to ensure that we iron out the scheme and make it as simple, as user-friendly and as easy to use as possible.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
One of the questions that the 1.2 million British people living in the EU are asking is what their entitlement will be to continuing medical care in the other member states in the event of there being no deal. What answer can the Minister give them?
Suella Braverman
We are working towards a mutually beneficial agreement. The terms of the withdrawal agreement are mutual, so they will apply equally to EU citizens in the UK and to UK citizens in the EU. In the event of no deal, we would make strenuous efforts to reassure the position of UK citizens in the EU so that they would be able to enjoy the rights that they enjoy today, but we would definitely have to work hard to agree that with individual member states in the EU.
I would now like to turn to the implementation period. The Government are committed to providing certainty and stability to businesses as part of a smooth and orderly exit, and we have been clear that they should only have to plan for one set of changes as the UK moves to the future relationship with our European partners. That is why we have agreed a strictly time-limited—
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
In the context of the exchanges that we had in the European Scrutiny Committee last Wednesday with the Secretary of State, can the Minister throw some light on how people will know, when there are changes to the rulebook, what those changes are going to be? What certainty will that provide, when in practice those changes will be decided by 27 other member states behind closed doors and without even so much as a transcript?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will know as well as I do that Council directives and regulations that will come into effect in the UK during the implementation period are currently going through the scrutiny process in the EU, so we will have played a part in the development of many of those rules that might come into effect—
Suella Braverman
If I may finish my point, I will then give way. For rules where we feel that there may be an adverse effect or on which we have not had sufficient say, we are committed to enabling parliamentary scrutiny, and we are looking forward to discussing those options with Members.
Sir William Cash
My hon. Friend has just conceded that there will be a joint committee. She did not specifically say that, but that is how things will work in practice. I am talking about changes to the rulebook. If the 27 member states decide something and we accept it by way of international obligation, I do not see how we can prevent it. The parliamentary lock will simply be a farce.
Suella Braverman
When it comes to the implementation period, the withdrawal agreement, in its draft treaty form, contains agreed provisions on a joint committee. That committee could be a forum for resolving the issue to which my hon. Friend alludes. I hope that that provides some reassurance that there is an element of governance that commands some confidence and legitimacy in this process.
Significantly, from March 2019 and during the implementation period, the UK will not be a member state of the European Union. As a result, for the first time in 40 years, we will have the freedom we need to strike new trade deals with global partners—a freedom that builds on our long and proud history as a great trading nation and a champion of free trade with all parts of the world. Important work is already under way to maximise such opportunities. In July, the Department for International Trade launched consultations to inform the Government’s approach to trading with the US, Australia, New Zealand and potentially to seeking accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I am excited that those opportunities for the UK are drawing ever closer.
To give effect to the implementation period in domestic law, the withdrawal agreement Bill must ensure that EU law continues to have the same effect in the UK as it does now for the duration of the implementation period. The House will be aware that the current mechanism by which EU law is brought into UK law is the European Communities Act 1972, which will be repealed on 29 March 2019 when we leave the EU as prescribed in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—a vital step in our exit. The Bill will require a strictly time-limited transitional provision so that the legal effect of the ECA is saved until 31 December 2020, at which point the implementation period will end. That will reflect the UK’s unique status as a country that has left the EU but which, for a strictly time-limited period, will continue to apply EU law as it does now, to the benefit of citizens and businesses.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Minister is talking about an implementation period, but is that not a misnomer? It is far from clear what we will actually be implementing. She is going to ask Parliament to sign off on a process when there is no detail of what our future trading relationship with the EU or anyone else is going to look like and when we will be giving up our negotiating power within the EU. Is it not just a step into the unknown?
Suella Braverman
I am disappointed that the hon. Lady is not here to welcome the implementation period, which has been welcomed by many businesses not only in her constituency, but throughout the UK, because it provides time and certainty. It is part of the withdrawal agreement, which is part of the final deal package, which is intricately linked to the future framework on the economic partnership. Together, they will be put to Parliament for the meaningful vote.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that 90% of future global growth will come from countries outside Europe? Will she therefore clarify that we will be able to start to benefit from that potential growth by signing trade deals during the implementation period?
Suella Braverman
I welcome my hon. Friend’s optimism. She is absolutely right. During the implementation period, the UK will be able for the first time in 40 years to design and develop its own independent trade policy, with the freedom to sign, negotiate and ratify trade deals with countries outside the EU. That is an important benefit precisely because, as she says, 90% of global growth will come from outside the EU, and we need to maximise that for our businesses and our citizens.
The provisions in the Bill in no way diminish the importance of the EU (Withdrawal) Act, which colleagues on both sides of the House worked so hard to scrutinise. That Act remains vital to the exit process, and any changes made to it by the withdrawal agreement Bill will not change its purpose. It was not appropriate for the EU (Withdrawal) Act to account for an implementation period, as the Act needed to be passed without prejudice to negotiations to ensure a functioning statute book on exit day. Now that we have secured agreement on the implementation period, we must ensure it is given proper domestic legal effect, which includes deferring the point at which some of the Act takes effect.
The negotiated financial settlement covering the UK’s financial commitments to the EU and the EU’s financial commitments to the UK provides predictability to current recipients of EU funding, including farmers, businesses and academics, with the UK continuing to get receipts due under the current EU budget plan. This is an issue of great importance to the House. We are a country that honours its international obligations, but it is important to recognise that the financial settlement was reached on the basis of both sides’ commitment to reaching a deal. If one side fails to live up to its commitments, there will be consequences for the deal as a whole, which includes the financial settlement.
The withdrawal agreement Bill will include a standing service provision that allows the Government to make payments due under the financial settlement. Although the amounts to be paid will vary and are a function of the terms of the settlement, the Bill will only allow payments to meet the financial commitments required by the withdrawal agreement. Parliament will want to monitor those payments, and it will be important to ensure that the payment mechanism balances the Government’s legal responsibility to pay the financial settlement with Parliament’s duty to scrutinise.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On the question of the financial settlement, does the Minister agree that it would be more honest for the Government, at the same time, to set out what the UK’s financial exposure to the European Union will be after the transition period? People would then be able to assess whether this actually represents value for money.
Suella Braverman
Characteristically, the right hon. Gentleman seeks to focus on the negatives and on the pessimistic view of Brexit for which he is well known. I do not sign up to his view of Brexit; I am very optimistic about the opportunities and the benefits that this country will stand to gain after we leave the EU and after the implementation period. I encourage him to put his pessimism aside and to get behind British businesses, to get behind British exporters and to get behind Britain.
Chris Bryant
Will the Minister get behind me? We are almost running out of time.
Chris Bryant
The Minister has just suggested that we might not end up paying the bill that has already been agreed, because nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That therefore means there is no guarantee that there will be a transition period from next year. It also means that the Government must surely have some idea about which passport controls British citizens will use in Europe and which passport controls European citizens will use here. If not, they are completely irresponsible.
Suella Braverman
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s doggedness and his interest in passport queues. That information will be made public and will be set out by the Government in due course.
When it comes to the agreement, of course both sides are entering into an international treaty. Under customary international law, and under the convention that regulates international treaties, both parties will be bound by the duties to which they sign up. If one party fails to adhere to its obligations, the other party will have legal freedom to take appropriate countermeasures, which is what the UK retains in this international treaty negotiation. Both sides are committed to agreeing the framework of the future relationship alongside the withdrawal agreement, but it is our firm view that the withdrawal agreement itself must include a commitment requiring the framework for the future relationship to be translated into legal text as soon as possible. I am pleased that is now something we are taking forward in the negotiations, and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has raised this issue personally with Mr Barnier.
I hope that I have made it clear today that the withdrawal agreement Bill is vital in delivering our exit from the EU. It will protect the rights of individuals and families, give effect to the time-limited implementation period, ensuring continuity and certainty for businesses, and provide the appropriate means for paying the financial settlement.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
In the trade section of her speech, the Minister talked as though the UK were completely excluded from world trade today, but in fact we are right at the heart of it through 65 bilateral trade deals between the EU and the rest of the world. Can the Minister tell us how many of those the UK will be involved in when we have left the European Union?
Suella Braverman
If the hon. Gentleman studies the legal text of the withdrawal agreement, he will see that we have agreed with the EU that its international trade agreements will continue to apply to the UK during the implementation period as though we were a member state. The reason that I am so passionate and optimistic about Brexit and proudly campaigned to leave the EU is that, once we leave the customs union and the constraints of the common commercial policy and the common external tariff, it will be for this Parliament and our country to determine the future of our global trade and build on our rich and prosperous history in that regard. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to support that opportunity.
We are committed to getting this right, and I am confident that Members in all parts of the House will be able to support the Government in delivering the next step in leaving the European Union.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I very much welcome the fact that we are having it.
I suspect that many right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those who took part in its Committee stage, will share my view that the year-long passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was perhaps the most demanding legislative exercise that Parliament has undertaken in recent decades. The process of overlaying and amending that byzantine piece of legislation with the proposed EU withdrawal agreement Bill will be equally, if not more, complicated and onerous. That is why we welcome the publication of the White Paper before the summer recess and the opportunity for further debate today on the Government’s early expectations for that Bill.
I want to touch on three distinct issues. The first is the relationship between the proposed Bill and the recently enacted European Union (Withdrawal) Act. The second is what is not covered in the White Paper: the parts of the withdrawal agreement that remain unresolved but which will need to be resolved if we are to avoid crashing out of the EU with no deal, which would be the hardest and most damaging of departures. The third is the political declaration on the future framework and the type of document that the Opposition believe will be required for Parliament to make an informed judgment about whether the final deal should be supported.
I know that many Members want to contribute, so I do not intend to cover all the parts of the withdrawal agreement made at the March European Council, such as the negotiated financial settlement or the issue of citizens’ rights, which the Minister touched on. We will, of course, fully scrutinise the Bill as it applies to those issues when it is published and the technical details become clear.
Chris Bryant
There is an issue there, is there not? Drafting legislation normally takes time. There are only so many draftsmen and women in this country, and they tend to take their time. Even a very simple Bill can take months to draft. The idea that we would consider a Bill only days after the negotiation had been settled is for the birds, is it not? It is inconceivable that we will get legislation through both Houses before the end of March.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It will be difficult, which is why it is imperative that the Government bring back a negotiated agreement at the earliest opportunity. I hope that Ministers will confirm that it remains the Government’s intention to do so after the October EU summit. If the passage of the withdrawal Act is anything to go by, the Bill may be in trouble time-wise.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend has set out some clear and important tests to be met. Will he join me in welcoming the news today that the general secretary of the TUC, Frances O’Grady, has been very clear about the TUC’s position and that of trade unions across the country given the absolute shambles and chaos that we are seeing from the Government, let alone the time constraints that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) rightly pointed out?
Matthew Pennycook
Yes, I do welcome today’s announcement from the TUC. We have been clear that in the event of no deal, all options must be on the table. As I think I said in a debate just before the summer recess, we have to remember what no deal would mean: it would be a complete failure, in two years, of the Government’s entire Brexit policy. In that situation, as I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, we would be facing something akin to a constitutional crisis. At that point, every option must be on the table.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matthew Pennycook
I am going to make a little progress, if that is okay.
Let me turn to the relationship between the proposed withdrawal agreement Bill and the recently enacted European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which received Royal Assent on 26 June. Arguably, the most striking feature of the Bill that is the subject of the White Paper is the extent to which it will modify the European Union (Withdrawal) Act that this House and the other place spent more than 250 hours debating, and the fact that in many cases it will do so before the relevant provisions of that Act come into force. Of course, that partly reflects the degree of conditionality and uncertainty that any Government would face in attempting to legislate for Brexit, but in some cases it simply reflects the fact that this Government, scrambling desperately to keep their extreme Brexiteers onside, chose on more than one occasion to prioritise political gimmickry over the dictates of common sense. Such choices were exemplified by the Government’s decision last November to fix an exit day in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, and in so doing to restrict needlessly the sensible and necessary degree of flexibility that they had originally proposed in respect of an exit day for the purposes of that legislation.
No doubt many Government Members, still intoxicated by the fact that a symbolic reference to 11 pm on 29 March 2019 has been written into UK law, will defend that decision, but the fact is that the proposed Bill touched on in the White Paper will strip that reference of any legal significance. As paragraph 56 of the White Paper makes clear,
“EU law will continue to have effect in the UK in the same way as now”
until the transition period ends on 31 December 2020. Even the most ardent Brexiteers on the Government Benches cannot fail to note the irony that the Government’s flagship “great repeal Bill”, as the European Union (Withdrawal) Act was initially labelled, will not only preserve EU law in its entirety as of 31 December 2020, but will only emblematically repeal the European Communities Act 1972 at the point at which the UK ceases to be an EU member state.
Sir William Cash
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time, but it may be of some interest to him that I made this very point on 18 July, just as the House was about to rise for recess, because there is a real inconsistency. After all, the White Paper came out on 12 July, yet the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, including the repeal of the 1972 Act in section 1, went through only around 14 days before.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman is right, but it is an inconsistency of the Government’s own making, because they chose symbolically to repeal the ECA in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, and in this new Bill they are going to unpick the very legislation that we passed because, as paragraph 60 of the White Paper makes clear, the ECA will be “saved” for the duration of the implementation period and will continue to be legally effective until 31 December 2020. What is saved is not merely select parts of the ECA, but almost all its key provisions. Chapter 3B of the White Paper makes it clear that the Bill will ensure that throughout the transition, the EU doctrines of direct effect and primacy will continue to apply, including with regard to EU law that comes into force after 29 March next year; the legal basis on which most EU-derived domestic legislation stands will be preserved; and, as paragraph 80 of the White Paper sets out, the full role of the European Court and the binding nature of its rulings will be preserved.
The White Paper argues that repealing the ECA in name only, while in practical effect preserving its effect throughout the transition, is the most effective way to provide continuity and certainty to business and individuals. With the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and its fixed exit day already enacted, that may well be the case, but it is difficult to see why the flexibility provided for in the original drafting of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which allowed for Ministers to determine different exit days for different purposes, would not have achieved the same end, with the added benefit of saving us all a great deal of parliamentary time. The whole farcical saga highlights how when it comes to Brexit-related legislation, the Government have an unhealthy tendency to indulge in short-term tactical gimmicky at the expense of what is sensible and what is in the best interests of the country.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has welcomed the White Paper and encouraged the Government to come forward and finish the negotiations as quickly as possible. Will he disclose whether, if those negotiations are completed, he will vote for the outcome? If not, is he not the person who is guilty of political gimmickry, rather than Government Members?
Matthew Pennycook
I am well used to the hon. Lady asking questions that are slightly out of left field, but I fail to see how the Opposition can give an opinion on whether we will back a deal about which we do not know the full details and which is still being negotiated. We will faithfully apply our six tests when the deal comes before us, as we all hope it will.
The political gimmickry must stop, and when we approach this next Bill, we hope that the Government will focus on what is the most effective way to legislate for the issues in hand, but there is good reason to fear that that same short-termism—a myopic approach driven by whatever will buy Ministers a few days or weeks of respite from the predations of the European Research Group—could stand in the way of a sensible resolution to those parts of the withdrawal agreement on which no agreement has yet been reached. It is to that issue that I shall now turn.
As Members will know, several aspects of the agreement remain unresolved, of which the two biggest are the mechanism for settling future disputes and the Irish border. It is on the second of these that I shall focus, because the issue of how we avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland is clearly now the major sticking point to concluding a withdrawal agreement. We can talk as much as we like today, and on future days, about how Parliament will legislate for a withdrawal agreement, but if the issue of the Irish border is not resolved, there will not be a final deal to legislate for.
Catherine West
Does my hon. Friend agree that it comes down to what happened last Christmas in relation to the Northern Ireland question, and that we are again getting obfuscation after obfuscation? We are never getting to the point of what the actual deal for Northern Ireland is.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I shall come on to say, we need urgent, rapid progress on this issue, given the time constraints that we face.
Many Brexiteers—although, I must make clear, not all—continue to belittle the Irish border issue on the grounds that it is a problem that has been exaggerated by nefarious Brussels bureaucrats or those at home who seek a close future relationship with the EU. Having initially dismissed the issue as posing no threat to the peace process, they now seek to talk down the Good Friday agreement. Their behaviour is not only irresponsible, but misunderstands the significance of the open border as the manifestation of peace on the island of Ireland. The border is a deeply political problem, not just a technical problem. It is about not merely how we avoid a hardening of the border, but how we ensure continued co-operation in a range of areas—economic and social as well as political—as set out in the Good Friday agreement.
Anxiety on both sides of the border and across all communities about the risk of no deal, or the failure to agree a legally binding backstop, is very real, and it is growing. Of course, the best means of solving the issue would be to secure agreement on a future relationship that is compatible with protecting north-south co-operation and avoiding a hard border, thereby ensuring that any legally binding backstop that might be agreed will never be used, yet the ideological red lines that the Prime Minister outlined in her Lancaster House speech are fundamentally incompatible with securing a future relationship of that kind.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my frustration that although the UK Government agreed in December last year that their primary responsibility was to introduce specific proposals for the Irish border, in the intervening period we have seen next to nothing of substance from them? All they are doing is throwing stones at the partly completed proposal that the EU has had to introduce out of sheer desperation because the UK has offered nothing in return.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, over recent weeks I have seen some of the most ardent Brexiteers—people who wanted to take back control of our borders, incidentally—saying that they would just leave the border completely open. They are not going to be the ones who erect infrastructure. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has made it clear that because we chose to leave, the onus is on the UK Government, as well as the EU27, to come up with a solution that avoids any hardening of the border.
The Chequers proposals were designed to move the negotiations on, but it is patently obvious that they cannot command a majority in this House and would not be acceptable to the EU without further significant modifications of the kind that the Prime Minister cannot deliver because of the bitter divisions in her own party. The negotiations on this issue are at an impasse. Despite a summer of talks, little progress has been made on agreeing a legally binding and operable backstop. It is imperative that progress on this issue is now made and made quickly. With the second week of October being the effective deadline for sign-off at the October EU summit, there are now only a matter of weeks before the issue must be resolved. Both sides have an obligation, based on the solemn commitments they have given, to defuse the tensions that have built up around this issue, and both sides must now redouble their efforts to deliver a solution. What would make a legally binding backstop easier to agree, because it would ensure that it would be less likely to be used in the future, is a very clear signal on what the future relationship is likely to look like. That point was made at the end of last month by the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs.
That brings me to the final issue I want to touch on before drawing my remarks to a close—the framework for the UK’s future relationship with the EU, or, more specifically, the political declaration that will accompany the divorce settlement if agreement is reached across all outstanding areas. Arguably, it is the contents of that political declaration, more than the details of the withdrawal agreement itself, that the House will focus on when it comes to pass judgment on the deal that we all hope—genuinely hope—the Government are able to conclude and put before us later this year.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you may have noticed that the notion of a so-called blind Brexit has received a great deal of attention over recent weeks, yet it has always been a distinct possibility. That is partly because there is every incentive for the Government, practically and politically, to bring back a withdrawal agreement that contains a political declaration that is highly ambiguous. To do so would be unacceptable. A vague political declaration on the future framework would not be a solution to the problems that we are grappling with; it would be tantamount to avoiding those problems altogether. As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said earlier—she is not in her place now—that would leave the UK in a far weaker position during the transition than we would otherwise be, and we on the Opposition Benches would not accept that.
John Redwood
The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely important and interesting point. What does the Labour party think are the minimum strong clear commitments that would be required to make the political declaration acceptable?
Matthew Pennycook
I hope that the Minister will agree with us on this. We want a political declaration that is extensive, precise and substantive. When this House votes on the final deal, it must have a very clear signal of what the future relationship will be like—not a vague statement that allows us to crawl over the line to 29 March next year without any sense of where our relationship will end up in future. As I have said, the Opposition would not accept such a vague document.
When the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration are put before us, we will faithfully apply the six tests that we set out in March of last year. Let me be very clear: those six tests cannot, in our eyes, be met simply by failing to address them altogether. The political declaration on the future relationship must be sufficiently detailed and clear that hon. and right hon. Members are able to arrive at an informed judgment about whether the final deal and the future relationship are good enough for the country and for their constituents.
I appreciate that the negotiations are ongoing and that the drafting of the declaration is not yet under way, but in his summing up, I hope that the Minister will provide greater clarity on this matter. In particular, will he provide the House with a greater sense of the type of political declaration that the Government will be pushing for at Salzburg, an idea of the level of detail the Government believe that it needs to contain, and confirm, or reaffirm, that the Government still require a document that is both precise and substantive?
In conclusion, as I said at the outset of my speech, the Opposition welcome the White Paper as well as the opportunity to debate in more detail the legislation that we all hope will be laid before us later this year, but we urgently need a change of approach and pace from the Government. When it comes to the forthcoming European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, we hope that we see less of the short-term political gimmickry that we have seen in the past and more serious consideration of what is the most effective way to legislate. To that end, we call on the Government to allow pre-legislative scrutiny of those sections of the forthcoming Bill that relate to aspects of the withdrawal agreement that have already been agreed.
When it comes to the crucial issue of the Irish border and the default backstop, we need the Government to do everything they can to defuse the tensions that have built up around the issue and play their part over the coming weeks in delivering a solution. Finally, when it comes to the political declaration on the future framework the Government need to press for a document of sufficient precision and detail to allow the House to make an informed judgment.
The clock is ticking. The Government must shift their focus away from the deep divisions in their own ranks and towards what is needed to secure a deal that will work for the country. Urgent progress is essential not only to secure a withdrawal agreement, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, to ensure that full and proper scrutiny of the legislation that will be required to enact it.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I have made the point today—I have made it in previous debates—that it would not be satisfactory at all to accept the Chequers proposals. I shall explain why in relation to the particular arrangements under the White Paper.
First, while the White Paper contemplates saving the European Communities Act 1972 only during the implementation period, there are some very specific instances in which EU law will continue beyond the implementation period. The Government have already conceded in principle that some specific European Court jurisdiction will continue after the end of the implementation period, and that, of course, includes citizens’ rights. The withdrawal agreement, however, also includes other areas for which that would be the case, such as in relation to pending cases in which the facts arose before the end of the implementation period. Furthermore, continuing participation in EU agencies could entail automatic acceptance of the European Court’s decisions.
The Government say that they are going to save the European Communities Act in part. That is all very well but, as I said in my presentation of the arguments last Wednesday during the European Scrutiny Committee’s proceedings with Mr Olly Robbins and the Secretary of State, the reality is that within a mere 14 days of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 receiving Royal Assent, a White Paper was introduced on saving parts of the 1972 Act even beyond the implementation period in circumstances that I find not just weird but thoroughly unacceptable.
John Redwood
Paragraph 89 in chapter 1 of the future partnership White Paper says:
“The UK will seek reciprocal arrangements on the future rules around some defined elements of social security coordination.”
Does my hon. Friend share my fear that that may also involve jurisdiction over our banking system?
Sir William Cash
That is part of the same problem. I am afraid that there are some really very difficult questions that Ministers and the Government have to answer. I put all this to the Prime Minister immediately after 6 July, when the Chequers proposals came through. I questioned whether we could in fact reconcile the Chequers proposals with the European Communities Act 1972, and the reality is that we cannot. We may then say that we have an agreed implementation period to give certainty to businesses. However, as I pointed out in an intervention, it does not create certainty for business on product standards, for example, because anyone who knows anything about the workings of the European scrutiny system knows that decisions are quite often taken by officials in such things as working groups and then are effectively rubberstamped by Ministers. Furthermore, under the existing arrangements, decisions are taken behind closed doors without any transcripts of the proceedings.
Businesses need to wake up to this. They are told that they will have greater certainty, but do they really know and understand anything about how the system functions in practice? In practice, decisions are taken by consensus, because everybody knows what the outcome will be before they even walk in the room, but we will not even be there in relation to the common rulebook, so how can the Government provide business with certainty when they do not know what changes might be made to that rulebook? Moreover, people in business will have absolutely no idea why changes are being imposed on them because there is no transcript of proceedings.
Furthermore, a problem exists in relation to the scrutiny that will take place, because the so-called provisions of the joint committee represent no more than consultation. There will be no right for us to refuse to do something—I will come to the parliamentary lock in a moment—as the reality is that consultation means no more than saying, “We will listen to what you say,” but it does not mean that anyone will act. Anyone who is foolish enough to believe the European Union, given its background, its bullying tactics and the way in which it has operated over the past months and even before, needs to realise that the decisions will be taken by the other member states and that we will effectively have no real control over them whatsoever. That is a really serious problem.
John Redwood
Is not it also the case that, far from ending business uncertainty, the Chequers proposals create another 21 months of perpetual renegotiation, thereby maximising uncertainty?
Sir William Cash
That is completely true. I am very concerned about the suggestion that the Chequers proposals somehow or other end up creating more certainty—it is just not the case.
Peter Grant
When I was in the Netherlands with the Exiting the European Union Committee a few months ago, we had the opportunity to meet members of the Dutch Parliament’s equivalent committee. Halfway through that meeting, we had to stop because the Dutch Members were called to a vote. The Dutch Parliament had an absolute, binding vote on how its fisheries Minister would conduct himself or herself at an EU Fisheries Council vote later that week. The equivalent process in the United Kingdom is that the European Scrutiny Committee expresses a view, and then the Minister ignores it and does what he or she likes, and nobody can touch a Minister as a result. Is not it the case that the reason why so much EU legislation appears to be done over the heads of the people in the United Kingdom is because it is done over the heads of those in this Parliament? Other EU countries have much better parliamentary oversight of what their Ministers are up to than the United Kingdom.
Sir William Cash
I am bound to say that the system in this House involved much more transparency. For example, we do not have decisions taken by Parliaments that are determined by proportional representation. We do not have a system under which there are no transcripts of the proceedings. In this House, the Bills that go through Parliament set out all the provisions, and all legislation is subject to amendment by both Houses. Everything is printed. Hansard is available. Proceedings are filmed and shown on the parliamentary channel. People know where and how decisions are taken. The proposed joint committee will be no more than a consultative operation, and that does not mean that anything will come out of it.
A letter from the Secretary of State was put before my Committee on 5 September—more or less as we sat down that morning—regarding the discussions that we were going to have with Mr Olly Robbins and the Secretary of State. The letter says that there will be a
“working assumption that we would continue with the current model for providing written evidence to the committees through Explanatory Memoranda”.
My Committee is quite clear that that will not be anything like early enough. We want to know that we are going to get an explanatory memorandum at a very early stage. With regard to the scrutiny of the EU’s legislative proposals during the proposed joint committee procedure, the Secretary of State goes on to say:
“we will work closely with Parliament to agree upon a scrutiny system which, in the first instance, facilitates Parliament’s role in scrutinising EU proposals that may affect the UK during the implementation period.”
There is nothing, of course, about the fact that the process will go on afterwards. This is a pig in poke. We do not know what the scrutiny system will be, but we are being asked to approve it. Today’s debate is just a foretaste of what is to come. Working closely with Parliament to agree a scrutiny system but not actually telling us how the joint committee will work in practice is absolutely fundamental in this debate.
In the letter, the Secretary of State goes on to say:
“Given the way the EU’s legislative process works, most Council directives and regulations which will come into force during the implementation period have already been agreed or are being negotiated now, while the UK is still a Member State.”
Now, I know that the Minister referred to that point in her opening statement but, unfortunately, this does not deal with changes to the rulebook.
Let us suppose that it is the case that the 27 member states—with us not even at the table—will be able to make changes themselves and then effectively impose them on us, and that we are going to have a committee system. That system has not yet been agreed with us, and the details of it are extremely obscure but involve no more than consultation. If that is the case, when the negotiation of treaty obligations has been completed and we have entered into international obligations, which is what this will amount to, how on earth are we supposed to accept it when we—or the Committee or Committees scrutinising those questions—are then told, “Oh, this has all been agreed by international obligation behind closed doors”? We will have accepted the fact that that something will happen, but we will not actually be in a position to do anything about it at all. We are not merely buying a pig in a poke; we are also being bound and shackled by European law, and I have not even touched on the question of the arbitration arrangement.
Although I am in favour of arbitration in principle, the real question is whether it will be subject to European Court of Justice interpretation. I do not have time to go into all that today, but I simply put it on the table that that is a really serious problem. I know that the matter is currently under discussion, but it looks very much as if we will be buying into a reshackling of our Parliament and our businesses. The certainty that is being offered would be absolutely catastrophic if, in fact, the process went wrong and rules were imposed on us. That is what I am most concerned about in this context.
As for the parliamentary lock, the Prime Minister herself, in a pamphlet published by Politeia in 2007, was very explicit about the failures of the European system of oversight in the UK Parliament. Anyone can read it for themselves. All I am saying is that it is absolutely catastrophic. I have been on the European Scrutiny Committee for 33 years, and not once in all that time—and certainly not at any time before that—has Parliament ever overturned an EU decision that has been taken in the Council of Ministers. What confidence could we possibly have that that would ever happen, particularly as the Prime Minister said herself in her pamphlet that parliamentary sovereignty in this context was a fiction?
It is all very well to fall back on the concept that under our constitution we have the power to overturn legislative arrangements by Act of Parliament—that no Parliament can bind its successors and the rest of it. However, if, in practice, as with the European Communities Act in the first place, we voluntarily agree that we are going to accept what is being done, that situation is made worse by the context—a referendum in which the British people agreed by common consent that we will leave the European Union, with the Government accepting that; and the fact that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was passed by Members of the House of Commons by six to one and the withdrawal Act was passed by 499 to 120, or whatever it was. It is crystal clear that we should be in control of making of our own legislation on our own terms, not supplicants to the European Union.
What this is all about is that we are supplicants to the European Union, and I put that to the Secretary of State and Mr Olly Robbins. We are going to the European Union and saying, “What is it that you are prepared to give us?” And that is just not good enough. I say that because, apart from anything else, under this White Paper, the scrutiny process—during the implementation period and even afterwards—leaves us extremely exposed. That is the problem. It leaves us in a position whereby we are effectively engaging in a form of legal re-entry into the European Communities Act 1972. I do not believe—I have to say this in all candour—that the Government did not know that. I believe that they did know it, unequivocally, before the repeal of the ’72 Act was passed via the withdrawal Act’s Royal Assent. No one is going to kid me that the White Paper, which was produced 14 days later, did not get written in anticipation that we were going to repeal the ’72 Act through section 1 of the withdrawal Act at the end of June but then end up undermining that repeal within a matter of 14 days. I find that absolutely extraordinary. It was Chequers that did it. Up until Chequers, I was 100% behind the Government. Chequers ended up undermining the basis of the collective responsibility, as I understand it, of members of the Cabinet, because they did not know about that either.
I come back to the simple point: this is an unacceptable arrangement. We do not know how the joint committee will operate. We have no confidence whatever that it is going to be more than a mere consultation, and what is COREPER going to be doing about all this in the meantime?
There is much more that I could say, but others want to speak. I regard this as a very, very serious breach of trust. I am afraid that that is the basis on which I approach this debate. I think that a lot of people outside—the punters; the real people of this country—know and understand this. We decided on 23 June 2016 that we would leave the European Union. We did not agree that we were going to come back with some form of legal re-entry to satisfy the whims of the European Union, and particularly the country that dominates it most—namely, Germany.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate. First, I invite Members to spare a thought for our good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), whose husband passed away recently and his funeral is taking place today. I have no doubt that otherwise a lot more of my colleagues would have been here. Certainly, my thoughts are very much with Marion and her family today.
We are talking about legislating to leave the European Union, but I find it very difficult to know how even the best drafter of legislation that we have—and there are some pretty good ones in this place—can have a chance of drafting legislation when the Government still have not quite decided what they are legislating for. The first thing that anybody asks if they are asked to draft something, whether legislation or a legal contract, is, “What do you want it to say and what do you want it to do?” The Minister talks about the overwhelming majority of the draft agreement now being in place. That overwhelming majority is 80%; it has increased from 75% about three months ago. Even if we accept that it is the hard bits that are still to be done, if it takes us three months to do 5%, we can see that 20% before the end of March is pushing it a wee bit. Even if the Government knew what they wanted the legislation to say, it would be difficult; when they cannot decide what they want the legislation to achieve, it is a potential recipe for disaster.
That is not talking down Britain. I thought it was quite funny that when the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) spoke earlier, the Minister suggested that he was failing to get behind Britain and told him to get behind British businesses and British institutions, because he was highlighting some of the not only potential but now very real and present-day difficulties, problems and downsides to Brexit. Although I disagree with quite a lot of what he says about Brexit, I would suggest that his comments are a lot closer to the comments of British business, British universities and British civic society than some of the platitudes that we continue to get from Government Front Benchers—let alone some of the stuff we get from their so-called allies on the Back Benches.
Tom Brake
I echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments about his colleague. Is he aware that British businesses are already finding that when they are dealing with EU suppliers with a lead-in time for orders of six months, those suppliers are saying, “Well, of course we can sign a contract with you, but you’re going to have to bear all the risk of things like no-deal tariffs and delays on the border, and we’re not going to carry any of that risk.”? That is already happening to British businesses.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
If Members are down to speak, I do not want to hear their speeches in interventions. Can we please just stick to interventions?
Peter Grant
The right hon. Gentleman touches on something that Members on both sides of the House have referred to in the past. We know that a lot of very significant businesses right across the whole spectrum of the UK economy have serious concerns. They are telling Ministers in private what their concerns are. They are bound to be saying it in private, because they do not feel that they can go public for various reasons. Obviously, businesses do not like to go public about things that they think might bring down their business. That is how the Government can get away with simply pretending that there is not really a problem, or claiming that anyone who highlights a problem is somehow being unpatriotic or not getting behind British business.
The Minister talked in glowing terms about all the trade deals that we will be able to negotiate in the blink of an eye after we leave the European Union at the end of a transition period—or implementation period, or whatever it is being called this week. Of course, an implementation period does not give us certainty; all it does is extend the period of uncertainty by a year or so. It is bit like someone who is heading towards the edge of a cliff thinking that maybe it is good if they can prolong the uncertainty about just how high the cliff is until the last possible moment, but who does not use that period to back away from the worst potential consequences of their decision. An implementation period that causes a cliff-edge Brexit at the end of 2020 is not really much better than a cliff-edge Brexit at the end of March 2019.
The Minister talked about all these trade deals that somehow we cannot do just now. I cannot understand how Germany manages. Germany seems to manage to trade very effectively and very profitably with a lot of countries that the United Kingdom does not trade with or trades with on very poor terms. What are the Germans doing right? What are the German Government good at, with regard to running their economy, that this Government are not good at? I do not have time to give all the answers.
Sir William Cash
Of course, there is a simple reason for that. First, Germany calls all the shots in the European Union; and secondly, it hides behind the euro currency and therefore has an enormous trade advantage, as Mr Trump has identified. That is demonstrated by Office for National Statistics figures that show that we run a deficit with the EU27 member states of about £80 billion, and Germany has a surplus of £104 billion a year.
Peter Grant
An alternative explanation might be that Germany has had a succession of Governments who actually believe in investing in the long-term stability and sustainability of its economy, whereas the United Kingdom, for decades, has not had Governments with the ambition, the imagination or the long-term vision to do so.
In answer to a question from an Opposition Member about the 65 trade deals that we are currently party to, thanks to our membership of the European Union, the Minister suggested that the European Union has already agreed that all those 65 deals will be extended to a non-EU member after we have left. Well, the European Union might have agreed to do that. However, it does not have the right to do it unilaterally, because every one of those 65 deals has got somebody on the other side of the table, so the second signatories to all those 65 deals will have to be asked if they agree as well. Some of them will agree, but if any one of the 65 says no, we are immediately in a worse bidding position than we are as part of the European Union. Anyone who suggests that we can replicate all those 65 trade deals by March 2019 or December 2020, or at any time when most of us are still active in politics, is being wildly optimistic. It is almost as ridiculous as suggesting that these negotiations will be the easiest trade deals in history and it will be all done and dusted within six months.
We hear all the platitudes from the Government. The latest buzzword is “broadly”. It used to be that EU nationals living in the UK would have “approximately” the same rights as they currently have; now they are to have “broadly” the same rights as they currently have. I do not want them to have broadly the same rights; I want them to have exactly the same rights. In fact, I want them to have at least the same rights, because in some areas they should have more rights than they have just now. The Minister did not give way when I wanted to ask a question earlier, so I hope that her colleague will tell us explicitly, without any prevarication, what the Government mean when they continue to say “broadly” the same rights. Will he give us the specific areas in which EU citizens currently living in the UK will have fewer rights after we leave the EU than they have just now? These people are entitled to know which of their rights they will lose that are being hidden behind the word “broadly”, which the Government have started using all the time.
There has been mention of the question of the Irish border. Like other speakers, I find it astonishing that the only way that some people, including a growing number on the Government’s hard Brexit side, can reconcile what is happening is just to pretend that the problem does not exist. We are told that people are using false concerns about the Irish border to play out some kind of clandestine political agenda.
I remind Members about a couple of things that this Government willingly signed up to in December last year, as part of the joint report with the European Union—namely, that the United Kingdom will accept in all regards that the Republic of Ireland will continue to be a full and integral member of the European Union for as long as the Republic of Ireland wants to and that the United Kingdom will accept that the Republic of Ireland will and must comply with all aspects of European Union law. The United Kingdom has already committed itself to accepting that the Republic of Ireland is bound by European law as it applies to the enforcement or the observance of the European Union’s external borders.
The Republic of Ireland would love to get an agreement endorsed by the rest of the European Union that allows the border to be kept as it is now. The Republic of Ireland does not have the option of doing what so many Government Members blithely suggest, which is to sweep aside EU border legislation unilaterally, by keeping an open and uncontrolled border, contrary to European law and contrary to the commitments that this Government have already made. Let us have no more of this nonsense of trying to blame the Republic of Ireland for a mess that has been wholly created by the UK Government. Let us have no more of this nonsense of saying that somehow the European Union is usurping British sovereignty over Northern Ireland by trying to force a backstop agreement that the Government do not want.
As I said in an earlier intervention, the UK Government undertook in December last year to bring forward specific proposals for a solution to the question of the Irish border that would comply with all the requirements of Ireland’s continued membership of the European Union and with all the requirements of the Good Friday agreement and the peace process. In the intervening period since December 2017, the UK Government have utterly failed to live up to that promise. That was why the European Union brought forward a solution that I do not think it thinks is particularly good, but it was a desperate attempt to get the UK Government to put their money where their mouth is and bring forward one of the specific sets of proposals that they had willingly promised to produce as a basis for discussion.
Again, let us have no more of this nonsense of claiming that somehow there is a conspiracy between the Irish Government and the EU to take Northern Ireland away from Britain against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. The European Union will support the Republic of Ireland because the Republic of Ireland is a member of the European Union, in exactly the same way as the European Union would support the UK in a trade dispute, border dispute or customs dispute with any non-EU member if we asked it to.
I am asking the Minister who sums up to confirm in terms that the UK Government still respect absolutely and unreservedly the sovereignty of the Republic of Ireland and its position as a full and integral member of the European Union, because too much of what we have heard being supported by Conservative Members appears to undermine that position.
Let us not forget that the people of Northern Ireland have spoken twice on this issue. When they spoke in 2016, they said, “We want to stay in the European Union.” When they spoke in the referendum on the Good Friday agreement—which did not bring peace to Northern Ireland, let us not forget, but it certainly brought peace a lot closer than it was before—the agreement reached at that point was that nobody could take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and that nobody could force Northern Ireland to stay in the United Kingdom against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. How on earth is it within the spirit of that agreement for anyone to take Northern Ireland out of the European Union against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, especially when it is becoming increasingly clear that it is difficult, if not impossible, to deliver the kind of Brexit the Prime Minister is obsessed with without having to go back on some of the promises that have saved so many lives on both sides of the Irish border over the past number of years?
The Irish border question cannot be easily solved if Northern Ireland is out of the EU and the Republic is in. It can be very substantially solved within the terms of the question that was on the referendum ballot paper if the Prime Minister is prepared to see sense, listen to sense and listen to the businesses and so on that the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington was accused of not supporting. Those businesses are saying to us, “Why in the name of goodness are we coming out of the customs union and the single market?” Customs union membership makes the solution to the Irish border question so much easier and so much more achievable. If that was the only benefit of being in the customs union, I would say to the Government that they should at least think about it.
People did not vote to leave the single market or the customs union. They voted to leave the European Union. [Interruption.] I still have a photograph of the ballot paper at home, if Members want to see it; it does not say anything about the single market or the customs union. We do not really know how many of the 17 million people who voted to leave wanted us to leave the customs union and how many wanted us to stay in it. How does the Minister think Members should vote on the deal, assuming a deal is brought back, if they want to respect the wish of the majority—the majority being the 16 million who wanted to stay in the whole package and the unknown but undoubtedly significant number who wanted us to leave the European Union but not the customs union and the single market? Which option is the Minister saying we should support? Should we vote for a proposal from the Government that will involve us leaving the customs union and the single market on a rotten deal, or should we vote for a proposal that says we will leave the single market and the customs union on no deal at all? That is not a choice that respects the sovereignty of the people or, indeed, the alleged sovereignty of Parliament.
If the Minister is as confident as she appeared that the deal brought before the House will be one that we can all enthusiastically get behind, why do the Government not commit to make that vote a proper, meaningful vote, with alternatives for those who do not want the Prime Minister’s deal because it is too destructive and who do not want no deal? If the Government are so confident that we will accept the deal anyway, why not offer to put a third option to Parliament, which is to let the people decide? If we cannot agree what the people really meant about leaving the customs union, borders in Ireland, passport queues at Brussels and all the rest of it, why not ask them again what they really meant?
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has any views about the conditions before there would be an opportunity for people to determine whether they support the terms of a deal. For example, we heard this weekend that two out of three members of the three biggest unions support having a say on the deal. Are those the sort of conditions?
Peter Grant
I come from a tradition where the people are sovereign, and if Parliament cannot decide what the people actually meant when they voted, Parliament should ask the people. I am not that bothered about going back to ask the people in my country what they wanted, because they made it perfectly clear by a majority of almost 24% that they wanted to stay.
Stephen Kerr
The hon. Gentleman comes from a political tradition where accepting referendum results is a philosophical problem.
Peter Grant
I love it when somebody who hardly knew I existed 18 months ago knows more about my political philosophy and political motivations than me. I suspect that I have lived in this body for longer than the hon. Gentleman has. I want to make this quite clear to him yet again, although I cannot say that I will only use words of one syllable, because “syllable” is too big a word to use. The Scottish National party is founded on the principle of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. That principle has been unanimously endorsed by this House during this Parliament. If he did not agree with the sovereignty of the people, he could have spoken about it and voted at the time. He did not, and therefore, according to the rules of this most sovereign of palaces, he has endorsed the principle of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland said that they want to stay in the European Union. That creates a difficulty, but ignoring the will of the people when it does not suit is not a solution to the problem.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Is the problem with the people’s vote not the talk about having a vote on the deal but the fact that if the vote involves the same Hobson’s choice that we will get here—a rubbish deal or no deal—it will not help to put that to the people? If there is no option in that vote to not do this, that will give it a false legitimacy and actually weaken the fight against Brexit, not strengthen it.
Peter Grant
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. One of my concerns about the growing campaign for a people’s vote is that if it is as meaningless and as flawed a process as the 2016 referendum, it will not bring us any further forward, regardless of the result.
What the Government can be in control of is the wording of the motion that they bring forward and demand we give our unanimous support to, otherwise they will say that we are failing to get behind British businesses, British institutions and all the rest of it. We will be given the option to vote for a deal of some kind, and we will be given the option—by implication, if no other way—of opting for no deal, but we should be given a third option. I remind the Minister and the Government again that, as far as the people of Northern Ireland are concerned, constitutionally and by international treaty, they do have an option, and the indications are that more and more of them are seriously considering that option. [Interruption.] The Minister can tut all she wants. One of her colleagues admitted last week that she did not know that people in Ireland vote on unionist and nationalist lines, and if that is the depth of the Government’s ignorance about how politics in Northern Ireland works, it really does not surprise me.
The people of Northern Ireland are guaranteed that they will always have a third option before them, and the people of Scotland always have a third option before us. I would like the people of England and the people of Wales, and their elected representatives, to have another option as well. I do not want the MPs representing constituencies in England and Wales to be forced to decide between a catastrophic deal and a catastrophic no deal. My very real worry is that the political games—the musical chairs and musical Cabinet offices—being played within the Conservative party just now are leading to a position where the deal offered will be so different from no deal that it really will not make any difference, and we will end up with a result that fewer than 17 people in these islands, never mind 17 million people, would really have wanted.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The British people voted, by a large majority of over 1.25 million votes, to leave the European Union. We had all been told, by means of leaflets sent to our homes by the then Government, that this was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to vote on this—not a series of votes until people got the answer they liked—and that we, the people, would make the decision. It was a very clear issue. The leave voters I met, and I met a good number of leave voters, took it very seriously. They understood the arguments, they considered them and they meant their vote. I do find it most curious that some Members of Parliament are still saying that it was not clear that we voted to leave the single market and the customs union. One of the very few things that the two official campaigns agreed on was that point. Remain said that we would obviously have to leave the single market and customs union—remainers regarded it as a kind of threat—and leave said that we would want to leave the single market and customs union, as well as having to, because we saw it as an opportunity. So there was happy agreement and everybody voted accordingly.
I was a very strong supporter of this Government because they were elected, in the recent general election, on a ticket of getting on with implementing Brexit. That was pretty popular around the country. The Conservatives got a much higher percentage of the popular vote than in all the previous elections since Margaret Thatcher. We did not get as many seats as we would have liked because there were interesting surges in the popularity of the Labour party, which also fought the election on getting on with implementing Brexit. The bit of the Labour manifesto I most enjoyed was the rather long piece in it about how Labour wanted an independent trade policy. It was not in every respect the policy that I would have designed, but Labour made it crystal clear that it wanted a completely independent trade policy and that would of course be totally incompatible with staying in a single market and a customs union.
I was very happy with the Lancaster House speech, which I thought was beautifully crafted. It set out exactly the vision that most leave voters and many moderate remain voters who accepted the democratic verdict of the people could buy into.
Debbie Abrahams
The right hon. Gentleman said that he appreciated the Lancaster House speech and that everybody who voted to leave did, too, but how does he know that?
John Redwood
From conversations, watching opinion polls and listening to the national conversation. I do not know about the hon. Lady, but I take my politics seriously and I regard it as my job to listen, to read, to understand and to consult colleagues. I find that coming into the Chamber is quite a good way of judging the mood because sometimes Members of Parliament, even those on the Labour Benches, know the mood in their constituencies.
Sir William Cash
Will my right hon. Friend remind the hon. Lady and the House that a pamphlet was put out by the Government during the referendum campaign that explicitly said, “This decision will be yours”? There was no question of its being decided by Members of Parliament. We operate by a system of parliamentary government, not government by Parliament.
John Redwood
Indeed, but let us press on.
My worry is about the Chequers proposal—and it is only a proposal; it is not a deal or an agreement—which was set out in the future relationship White Paper, and the consequent White Paper about how such an agreement, were one to arise, would be handled and implemented by this Parliament. My worry, and I think it is the worry of many leave voters and some remain voters, is that, having voted to get rid of treaty law—to dismiss the European Union treaty because we had not enjoyed living under its tentacles—the Government now suggest we need another two European treaties to replace the one that we are getting rid of. We are mightily suspicious of treaty law. Why are we so suspicious of it? Because the original treaty, the treaty of Rome, masqueraded as a free trade agreement, which is how it was sold to the British people in the long-distant 1975 referendum, but by accretion and development, over which the British people had no control, it changed—through Nice, Amsterdam, Maastricht and Lisbon—into a massive panoply of laws and controls and completely changed our constitutional structure, without the people ever having a proper vote on that process until the most recent referendum.
We know from our experience here that this became what I call a puppet Parliament. In dozens and dozens of crucial areas where we might like to legislate, we had no power to legislate independently of the European Union whatsoever. In all those massive areas—not just trade and business, but the environment, social policy, employment policy and even foreign affairs—we had to legislate in the way the European Union laid down. Quite often, many Members of Parliament and many members of the public disagreed with that way. Quite often, it was an area where the Government had either lost a vote or did not bother to hold one because they knew they were going to lose as they were in disagreement with other member states. It was that above all else that the British public rejected in the historic vote in 2016. They said to Members of Parliament, “Collectively, you often make a mess, we don’t always approve of you and we are very critical of you, but you are our MPs” and the joy the public have is that they can fire us if we really annoy them or we get it wrong, whereas the European Union often strongly annoys them and gets it wrong and there is absolutely no one they can, directly or indirectly, have fired because it is a system that the UK cannot control and has to receive. We are, therefore, very suspicious of the idea of more treaty law.
One of the things that makes this debate very difficult for a neutral observer to come to a sensible view on is the abuse of language and the scare stories that seem to characterise most of what passes for debate on these important issues. I do not for one moment believe that there is a cliff edge and I do not for one moment believe that we would leave the European Union with no agreements. There will be lots of agreements. We have always had lots of agreements: there are lots of business-to-business agreements, business-to-individuals agreements, business-to-Government agreements and even Government-to-Government agreements. Once we have left the European Union properly, I am sure that there will be a lot of diplomacy, discussion and joint action, but we want it to be bilateral and based on the merits of the case as we proceed each time. We do not wish it to be multilateral through the EU, where the EU has special legal powers that mean that it has duress over us or can prevent us from having a weighted dialogue with the EU and reaching an agreement if we wish and not if we do not.
The structure of what the Government are now proposing is quite alarming. The EU withdrawal agreement would take the form of an international treaty, which would of course need full ratification by Parliament in the way that has been laid out. However, if it was agreed with the EU and then subsequently ratified by this Parliament, we would be back in the position where European law had more significance and for the whole of the transition period we would of course be completely back under the control of the European Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has pointed out, we would be even more vulnerable than we are today because the EU could legislate in our absence. At least we can see them annoying us at the moment around the same table, whereas we would be in the position where they could simply do it without consulting us or taking into account our views.
Therefore, that is not a good idea, but even worse is the proposed legal form of the so-called future partnership agreement. The UK Government call it a partnership agreement, but I think what the EU proposes, and would call it, is an EU association agreement. Such agreements are normally very comprehensive, and we can see exactly what they look like when we read the one for Turkey or for Ukraine. They have been designed by the EU to lock in countries that would like to become members but are not yet fully compliant with all its legal requirements, standards and so forth. They are used to drag those countries gradually into compliance—usually willingly, because they want to join.
We want something completely different. We want agreements on how to proceed in various areas, but we are going in the other direction. We do not want an agreement that drags us into closer compliance; we want the freedom and flexibility to have our own trade policy, our own fishing policy and our own business policy as time evolves. I am very worried that an association agreement model, rather than allowing that, would reintroduce the powers of the European Court, over which we will obviously have no control, and we would again be under strict control in a number of wide-ranging areas from which the British people wish us to liberate themselves.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
In the right hon. Gentleman’s vision of the future, how does he see the nature of the devolved Governments here? There was clearly a very different relationship before we went into the EU. What influence does he see them having on the trade deals that the Government seek?
John Redwood
In the model that I am describing, we would get much more power back and we would keep it, and that would then be shared with the devolved Administrations, so they too would be winners. That settlement will be sorted out in the usual democratic way in a unitary country that has recently had a very important democratic event. The Scottish people decided by a decent margin in a referendum that they wished to stay in the United Kingdom, so their way of influencing the trade deals will be through this Parliament. Had they chosen to leave the United Kingdom, they would be having their own trade deals—or more likely they would be having the EU’s trade deals, because the Scottish National party does not seem to want an independent Scotland; they want a Scotland that is dependent on the EU, rather than a very important partner in the United Kingdom enterprise.
My other worry about the two prospective treaties that the Government are mulling over is conditionality. The Government have told us that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and I fully approve of that. They also seem to understand that, unless they are prepared to say to the European Union, “We will leave without signing the withdrawal agreement,” they have no negotiating position. We now know that the Government are quickly preparing to be able to leave without signing a withdrawal agreement. I think that that would be a very attractive option for many leave voters because the withdrawal agreement itself is mainly about the United Kingdom paying an extremely large bill. The Government are saying, “Yes, but you need to look at the whole package. You need to see what is in the future partnership”—the association agreement treaty to come, because they think that might persuade Parliament and people to accept the rather unpalatable withdrawal proposal. The Government’s problem, as we have just heard from the Opposition, is that there will not be a majority in this House to put through the current kind of withdrawal proposals the Government have without a very clear, bold and good-looking association agreement/future partnership and we might be looking only at rather vague heads of terms. I suggest that the Government need to introduce rather stronger conditionality than they have done so far in their negotiations. They need to make it crystal clear that there is no £39 billion unless something really impressive is available.
I do not know about the Government—I sometimes worry about how they might go shopping—but when I go shopping I do not go into a shop, put £39 down on the counter and say, very politely, “By the way, I have £39 there for you, which I thought you might like. Do you have something that I might like so that I do not leave the shop as a loser?” It seems to me that that is what the Government did. They put down £39 billion—they have rather more money than I have, lucky them; some of it is money that they took from me, actually—on the counter and said, “By the way, EU, we have these dreadful Eurosceptics back home who want value for money, so it would be quite nice if you could offer us something that might be suitable for us.”
When I look at what the EU has in its shop, I am afraid, oh Government, that I do not see anything that I would pay £39 billion for. Yes, I would like a free trade deal, which I think would be a perfectly good answer in the current situation, but I do not remember Canada paying anything for its free trade deal. A Canada deal would be just fine, with a few extra knobs and whistles—we start from complete compliance with the EU, so it will be easy to have a few extra knobs and whistles—but I do not think that is the kind of thing I would pay £39 billion for. Indeed, the tariff saving would be a small fraction of £39 billion, so it would not make a lot of sense financially. The Government, therefore, have a bit of work to do to persuade friendly, reasonable people like me that the two treaties they have in mind represent a good deal for the British people.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the divorce payment. Is he making the case that Nigel Farage should be deprived of his pension pot?
John Redwood
I am not suggesting that at all. That gentleman’s pension pot is a liability of the European Union. They entered into it, so I think it is something that they need to sort out. I do not think that the European Union should be the kind of body that stops people getting their pensions. I do not remember when we joined the European Union being given a big pot of money to reflect all the liabilities we inherited, so it is a bit difficult to understand why the reverse has to happen when we leave and we have to pay for the others. We simply were not given a whole load of money at the beginning to reflect the fact that we were going to have to pick up some of the pensions of civil servants who had been working in the EU before we arrived.
Peter Grant
It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that we went into the European Union on the basis of a referendum in which people did not understand the question but we are not allowed to use that argument now. Is it not the case that when new members join the European Union, they become liable for liabilities that occur only after they join? In the same way, if any member is daft enough to leave, they are liable only for those liabilities that occurred before they left.
John Redwood
No, I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I think that he will find that we were responsible for the existing pension liabilities jointly and severally with the other members. We cannot really complain about that; we were joining the club, so we had to help pay the club bills. When we leave the club, the remaining members pay the bills—it is a fairly straightforward operation.
Dr Whitford
I would have thought that when someone leaves the bar in the golf club, they pay their tab before they go. That is what the £39 billion is; it is not shopping for a trade deal. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that no deal is better, so as not to pay the £39 billion, I would be interested to hear what he thinks will happen to the EU citizens who have settled here and to British citizens who have settled in Europe, because they are also part of the withdrawal agreement.
John Redwood
I have always said that someone should pay for the drinks they have just ordered in the bar while still a club member, and once they have ceased to be a club member they cannot order drinks anyway, so there is no problem. I do not think that the hon. Lady has really got that one. As for EU citizens, I am very keen that we reinforce the Prime Minister’s assurances. I have always thought that if we do the right thing by its citizens, it will end up doing the right thing by ours. It is very important that we do not forget that our citizens have rights and need support as well, but I do not believe that the EU is as nasty as some remain voters seem to believe. I do not believe that this group of democratic nations would start evicting people from their countries after they had settled there legally under its rules. I hope that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that. If she is, why does she wish to belong to the kind of organisation that throws people out when they are legally entitled to be there?
Dr Whitford
It was the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues sitting on the same Benches who talked about EU citizens as bargaining chips and playing cards. One of them stated in the newspapers only recently that EU citizens would not be allowed to stay—someone not very far away from him at all.
John Redwood
I suggest that the hon. Lady addresses those remarks to whoever she thinks said that, but I did not.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I was asked a different question, which was about the rights of EU migrants who come after we have left. I have always thought that those who are here before we leave should maintain full rights.
John Redwood
Indeed. I would not have expected anything else. I think that it is always better if people speak for themselves.
I am very worried by this drift. I am also worried by this whole so-called implementation period or transitional period. It is clearly not an implementation period, because there is nothing to implement as of today. Even if there is a moderately detailed political agreement, it will not be something we can go off and implement. I have become very nervous about the idea that we need another 21 months of uncertainty. I have heard a lot from remain about the dangers of uncertainty. I can see that going on for too long with arguments about our future is not terribly helpful. I think 33 months is probably quite long enough to have a good old argument and see whether we can get a decent set of agreements from the EU or not. I remain to be persuaded that there is something our talented Ministers can achieve in negotiations on 1 April next year, to pluck a date out of the air with no particular significance about it being April fools’ day. What is it that could be agreed on April fools’ day next year that could not be agreed now or in December? We still have seven negotiating months left. We have already had two years or more of negotiations. I would say that that was a fair enough test. I would also take the view that if there is not something at the end of 33 months that we like, then we should just say, “Fine, it is not to be. We will go off and do bilaterals on a regular basis on the things that are of mutual interest.” I suspect we would get along just fine.
That is, of course, how the 160 other countries around the world get on with the EU. They do not have a special trade arrangement. They are certainly not bound by EU treaties in most cases. There are those who are terribly worried about the fate of the trade deals the EU has with 60-odd countries. I can reassure them that I still have not heard a single one of those countries say they wish to lose that trade deal with the UK. Of course, in law it novates to both the UK and the rest of the EU, but it needs to be agreed with the other party to the agreement. I do not know of any country that does not want to allow us to novate. Of course, some say we could improve it and make it better—why not? It is a good idea to have a look at it, but until I am told of a country that has actually ruled out taking on one of these trade deals I think they are there for us to continue to enjoy.
What is more important is that if we got on and left, we could sign trade deals and implement them from April next year. There are a number of countries friendly to us who would like early trade deals. There are off-the-shelf trade deals that they might be interested in developing, which they have developed with others, that would get us off to a good start. I do not like the provision in the White Paper—I think perhaps the Minister did not quite grasp it—that says, as I understand it, for the 21 months they are proposing for transition we are not allowed to implement a trade deal with anybody else. I think we could discuss them and get them ready for signing—that kind of thing—but they could be brought into effect. I think it would be rather nice to get on with it and bring things into effect.
There are plenty of other things I would like to talk about, but there are many others who would like to join in. Let me sum up by saying that my worry about the EU withdrawal proposal is that I do not think Parliament will be very willing to put the legislation through without great clarity, as Labour has said, on the so-called partnership—the association agreement. For myself, I am going to need a lot of persuading, because I think the money is far too great and the transition delay, so-called, is far too long. I am also extremely concerned that we will give up one EU treaty only to sign up to another two, which look to me as if they will have many of the problems that we had from the original.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood).
This House finds itself, 18 months after article 50 was triggered, with the Government having no credible Brexit plan, no viable solution for avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland, and apparently no majority in Parliament for the Chequers proposals. This debate comes on the same day as an e-petition debate in Westminster Hall on rescinding article 50 if it is found that the vote leave campaign broke electoral laws. The petition attracted 398 signatures from my constituency of East Lothian. My constituency voted, on a turnout of over 72%, 64.6% to remain and 35.4% to leave. The petitioners are of the view that if laws have been broken the validity of the referendum is questioned and article 50 should be withdrawn. The Government’s response to the petition included a quote from the Prime Minister:
“This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.”
The Government’s response went on to state:
“The British people can trust this Government to honour the referendum result and get the best deal possible. To do otherwise would be to undermine the decision of the British people.”
I raise that as a warning about the proposed legislation for the withdrawal agreement. Our law, like our paper currency, works only because there is universal agreement and consensus to follow and obey it. The confidence of the British people has been undermined. None of us here will be forgiven: neither those who seek to undermine the public’s confidence nor those who allow it to be undermined unchallenged.
The White Paper intends to give legal clarity to people and businesses, along with a political declaration, on the future relationship. To understand the significance of what is required, I want to look at my constituency’s relationship with Europe. East Lothian has many links with Europe. There are thousands of EU citizens who live and work in and around East Lothian. They work in education, the NHS and agriculture, from co-ordinating sheep-breeding programmes across Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to the provision of saplings, vegetables and grain. Whisky is exported from my constituency, both as a single malt and blended, to France. Thistley Cross cider travels around Europe and the world.
Chapter 2C of the White Paper discusses the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. There is a clear assertion that the Government wish them to be honoured and represented, but will the Minister say whether there is a guarantee that we will have access to the databases that hold that information? This will cause problems in Scotland, particularly with registered teachers, and for the safety of our children in relation to access to police databases regarding people.
East Lothian’s interconnection with Europe is complex and nuanced. It is vital to the future of my constituents, from the European workers who tend the fields with skill and expertise to the hospitality sector that makes our “golf coast” a success. Musselburgh racecourse relies very heavily on horses bred and trained in southern Ireland. The interconnections run at family and community level dating back to migrations from the previous century and earlier, from the manufacture of ice cream to modern cutting-edge IT companies that rely on today’s European students. Will the Minister tell us what consideration has been given to the avenues of enforcement for EU citizens here, as compared with UK citizens in Europe, regarding their rights and obligations? What will happen when there is a conflict in judgment between an EU country and the UK?
The disarray of the Government is causing distress, worry and fear for families and individuals. There is talk about having just one set of changes to the rulebook to stop any panic. I would like to look at that in relation to a constituent, Scott Sutherland. He runs an extremely successful chemical coatings company in East Lothian, Marott Graphic Services, which has been family-owned for over 30 years. It develops, produces and sells lithographic pressroom chemistry: high performance additives to put into machines to make sure corrosion is prevented. In 2011, it established XCP Corrosion Technologies, which sells successfully across Europe.
Scott is a classic example of an entrepreneur who is developing and growing his small and medium-sized enterprise. He is a practical man who welcomes technical and market challenges. He has more concern about the governmental challenges that are being put in his way. His view of Brexit is harsh, but based on facts. He read the initial technical papers put out in case of a no deal. They basically confirmed his fears that moving to a no deal will result in an immediate 6.5% tariff on his products, as well as other associated costs relating to delays, customs controls and the bureaucracy of form filling. His conservative estimate is that it will hit his margins by between 10% and 15%, which is the difference between his family business being viable and not being viable.
Scott is making active plans and preparations to transfer production to continental Europe. The loss of highly skilled technical jobs, the loss of personnel, and the possible loss of the business’s potential for East Lothian is devastating. It is an SME, and if that is replicated across the UK it will be a devastating blow to our economy.
The responsibility of those making the decisions is crucial. The withdrawal legislation we are debating today and provided for in the article 50 notice will implement an agreement we have not seen, proposals or a no deal—or some chimera of all—reached for political reasons rather than the benefit of the UK and Europe. The new legislation must amend earlier legislation, as we have heard, and it must deal with the question of a meaningful vote, either here in Parliament or a people’s vote on the deal. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) say that the SNP Government now agree on the need for a meaningful people’s vote.
Peter Grant
The hon. Gentleman may have misheard me. I said that we could not have a meaningful vote here until we knew what the terms of any supposed people’s vote would be. I do not think anyone could sign up to that. We certainly want to see a meaningful vote in Parliament, not the Hobson’s choice that the Government intend to impose on us.
Martin Whitfield
I apologise: my understanding was that the hon. Gentleman spoke about a meaningful vote for the people as a third option, if there was no agreement here. I am grateful for the clarification.
The majority of people in East Lothian and I believe that the original decision to leave Europe was wrong, but there is a variety of solutions, from a no deal, WTO, hard Brexit through the Chequers agreement to what is looking less like a deal for the country than a deal to keep the Conservative party together. The proposals from the Government will damage the UK—the whole of the UK—and, in particular, they will damage our young people. That damage will last for generations.
There is another solution, which would protect our United Kingdom. I look to Conservative Members representing Scottish constituencies to stand up and ensure that the United Kingdom remains so. It is a deal that would protect the staff and users of our NHS, protect our chemical industry and our manufacturing industry, protect the Northern Ireland border and the Good Friday agreement, and protect our reputation abroad as a law-abiding society, and it must involve staying in the single market and the customs union. It does not really matter what we call it, but what does matter is that it preserves our relationship with the EU and our stance as an open, outward-looking, supportive partner.
History gives the opportunity to review, consider and analyse. Leadership gives the privilege of decision making today, even if that decision begins with an admission that this might not be the best route for our journey after looking at the map.
Dr Whitford
The hon. Gentleman mentioned staying in the single market and customs union. Has he discussed that with his party’s Front Benchers, and has he managed to convince them that staying in the single market would be a good idea?
Martin Whitfield
My Front Bench has six tests that will give us exactly the same relationship that we have with the European Union, and that is a defendable position.
Dr Whitford
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the single market. That is not part of the six tests of the Front Bench of the Labour party.
Martin Whitfield
The six tests intend to keep us in a close relationship with exactly the same benefits that we exercise now.
If the decision making damages our United Kingdom and the future of our young people, our leaders today will not be forgiven. Scott Sutherland says:
“I sincerely hope it will not come to that.”
If it should, I suggest there is a case for a people’s vote.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful speech made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield), although I confess that I have many different thoughts.
Today’s debate on legislating for the withdrawal agreement is obviously covered in the White Paper, and it seems to me that it includes three key points. The first is the obvious issue of EU nationals. I have always thought that it is really important that people who are here lawfully, and who we allowed to come and invited to come, are protected in every possible way as if they were British citizens. We are not the sort of country that applies retrospective legislation, and as Conservatives we should have a particular admiration for people whose motivation is to improve their standard of living, and who have travelled halfway across a continent, legally and lawfully, to come to a country where they do not speak the language so that they can work hard to send money back to support their families. If that is not an admirable and Conservative thing to do, I do not know what is. It is not their responsibility that we have voted to leave the European Union. They came here under treaties we had agreed, and they will be entitled to remain here, because that is the type of country that we are.
Dr Whitford
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that settled status does not confer exactly the same rights that those people have at the moment?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The rights that they have should be no better or worse than those of British citizens. We should not have a special category of people under EU law. The extra rights they have under EU law have been a mistake, and they have been granted by the European courts contrary to our intention. It is absurd that it is easier to bring in a dependant under EU regulations as an EU citizen than it is for a British citizen. That is not a fair law and, once we have left, it should not continue. People should have the same rights as the British, not better ones.
Dr Whitford
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the initial settled status offer meant that a European citizen who went abroad to work for two years would lose that status? The period has now been extended to five years, but that is not what applies to a British citizen.
Mr Rees-Mogg
We can be more generous. I am in favour of generosity to people who are legally here and who have made their lives in the United Kingdom. There must be some point at which, if they separate their lives from the United Kingdom and have not applied for British citizenship, the status might not be perpetual, but they should be looked after and protected, and we should always remember that they came here legally and that we are not a nation of retrospective legislation.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), I think that other continental countries will reciprocate, because they are civilised nations. We are dealing with allies and friends, so this should never have been a topic of negotiation. We should simply have set out our stall and said what we would do. I am glad that it is now clear that in the event of our leaving on WTO terms, we will protect the rights of EU member state nationals who are living in this country. That is the first point on legislation on withdrawing from the European Union, and I am all in favour of generosity.
The second point is law, which was covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has great experience in these areas. We were lucky that the Henry VIII clauses in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 were, by and large, removed, as they would have allowed all European law to have been brought back through the back door. It would have gone out through the front door and returned through the back door. Now, primary legislation will be needed, but that primary legislation is dubious, because it will produce a vassal state—Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians; this great nation state tied down by petty bureaucrats, running all over us, tying us down with ropes—because we will have to do whatever the European Union says during the implementation period. Our senior law will be made by a foreign body in which we have no say and no vote, and with which we have no association. Our money will go to—
Peter Grant
Which Europe are we dealing with: the one that is all friends and civilised countries that would never knowingly do anything bad to us; or a lot of miniature people who want to tie us down and, presumably, leave us to drown when the tide comes in? Or does the hon. Gentleman have a way to prevent the tide from coming in?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is confusing me with the much-maligned late King Canute, who was accused of trying to hold the tide back when, in fact, he wanted to show that it was not possible to do so. The bureaucracy of the European Union is something to which I am strongly opposed, but that does not mean that I do not admire the individual member states and think of them as great countries and friendly allies. The two are completely different. Even if they were the same, while I may have a great friend, I would not want him to rule my life. There is no logical connection.
Sir William Cash
If we look around the European Union—at Italy and, most recently, Sweden—many if not most of the other countries are voting with their feet against the restriction on their right to make their own decisions in their own Parliaments.
Mr Rees-Mogg
As so often, the United Kingdom is leading by example. To paraphrase that great quotation from Pitt the Younger, we have saved ourselves by our exertion and we will save Europe by our example. We should always remember that as we make this great exertion—this worthy and noble exertion.
To have a period of 21 months, however, during which our senior law in this country cannot be stopped and our senior court is the European Court of Justice is a great mistake. It is an aspect of the legislation for which I, for one, will find it extremely difficult to vote, because there was another way—an alternative route. In terms of the courts, it is what we do with our own courts in relation to human rights challenges.
If the domestic court—the Supreme Court—decides that a bit of primary legislation fails to meet the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998, there is a fast-tracked way of amending legislation through statutory instrument. That means, however, that if the House of Commons is against the change and wills to make the move that is against the Act, it is free to do so. That maintains control under our democratic processes, and that is how the Government should be proceeding in relation to judgments of the ECJ—or the CJEU, if you prefer—during the implementation period. We would, in the normal course, want to accept them, because we would still have treaty obligations, but they should come to Parliament to be passed into our law by statutory instrument. That would give us a straightforward reserve power not to act it if we felt that the proposal was not the right thing.
Equally, the same should apply to new laws. New laws being made by the European Union, over which we will have no say, could do specific damage to areas of our interest. There could be laws affecting the City of London, in which I have certain interests—I draw people’s attention to my relevant declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. They are not just my interests, however; they are the interests of the nation at large, and we want to protect them and to prevent unfavourable legislation over which we have no control from being passed.
What is Her Majesty’s Government’s best defence of this ability of a foreign set-up to make laws for this land, which is something that I cannot think any country has ever voluntarily agreed to before? Countries have become colonies, but normally that is after a little encouragement, usually at the end of a bayonet, spear or some such. It is most unusual—unprecedented, in fact—to volunteer to allow a foreign organisation to make one’s laws.
Mr Rees-Mogg
No, that is not quite true. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant)—a great seat for which I once stood, in 1997, although not with enormous success—says that, but Scotland did not do that. Scotland became part of a greater whole, and how many Scottish Prime Ministers have we had who have led this country with great distinction? We became one, rather than simply farming out legislation to somebody else.
What is the Government’s best answer? It is that the EU is so slow—so slothful and sluggish—that in a period of 21 months, it could not institute any new laws and therefore we should not worry our little heads about it. This is a really unsatisfactory answer. It is not impossible for the EU to move swiftly, and it has done so the past. This is a golden opportunity for the EU to legislate in a way that we do not like, and we will have no say at all. I go back to the solution I have suggested for the courts: no new law without a vote in Parliament—and not a scrutiny vote. Although it is a very important Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee has never been able to stop any directive or regulation from coming in, and regulations have direct effect without any vote or scrutiny in Parliament anyway. There needs to be a vote as if for a statutory instrument. It is an abnegation of democracy to allow our law to be changed in this way, and this is a part of the White Paper that must be rejected.
John Redwood
Would it not be much easier if we did not have the so-called transition period and just got on with it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is very tempting—I would be delighted to talk about that proposition—but the title of our debate is “Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement”, so I feel I have to stick to those terms because otherwise Mr Deputy Speaker, who I understand has had a very nice holiday in France, showing our continental cousins that we still send them our finest and best—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. For clarification, I was actually looking around a first world war battlefield, and I went to see the grave of a Victoria Cross recipient from Chorley. It was essentially not a holiday.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I understand there was a haircut while you were abroad that was reported in the national newspapers and should be brought to the attention of the House.
The third point is money. Money is really important. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) intervened earlier on my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham to say that we were the sort of country that pays its bills—that is absolutely true—but the question is: what do we owe under international law? On this point, the most authoritative report is “Brexit and the EU budget”, published in March 2017 by the House of Lords EU Committee.
One may say that an EU Committee will be stuffed full of Eurosceptics and would be bound to come out with a report unfavourable to the EU, and that could perhaps be true in the House of Commons. I used to serve on the European Scrutiny Committee, and it would only be fair to confess that most of us were followers of that great gentleman, my hon. Friend—not right honourable, sadly—the Member for Stone, but in the House of Lords that is simply not true. The Lords Committee is made up of former Law Lords, a former Cabinet Secretary and others who, by and large, were in favour of our membership of the EU.
The case explained in that very powerful document is that if we leave under the terms of article 50 without a withdrawal agreement, we will owe no money, and the reason is that our obligation to pay any money would in normal circumstances depend on the 1968 Vienna convention on the law of treaties. If we leave under those terms, without anything in the Lisbon treaty or other EU treaties, we would indeed be liable for our share of the liabilities, but that convention says that if the treaty of the organisation to which one belongs makes a different provision for leaving, that provision is authoritative. And then we go back to article 50, and the provision of article 50 is that if we leave after two years without a deal, that is it—there is no financial provision at all. In those circumstances, this £40 billion of our constituents’ money, which could be spent on other pressing needs—every Member could identify a pressing need in their own constituency, or for their own constituents or the nation at large—is not a legal obligation, but a charitable donation, unless it comes with a very clear quid pro quo.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), the Opposition spokesman, made an excellent point on this in his very considered speech. He said that the Opposition would be expecting a good deal of detail on the second stage. What are we moving to? A report last week said that we would have a 10-page document on a political agreement saying that motherhood and apple pie was all fine and dandy. That would be £4 billion a page for waffle. Well, Members may like waffles—they may prefer Belgium waffles—but £4 billion a page for waffle is not something that any responsible Member of Parliament could vote for. For what, after all, is the job of this House and its power? How do we control the Executive? It is has always been through the provision of money, and if the Executive wish to waste British taxpayers’ money, we must say no.
The answer, then, is that we are generous and say yes to people who are living here, but that we say no to being a vassal state, no to being tied down by Lilliputians, and no to squandering taxpayers’ money.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a privilege, as a north-east MP myself, to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg).
I voted to trigger article 50 in accordance with the will of my constituents. Forgotten communities, worries about immigration, promises of more cash for the NHS—whatever their reason, the people of Hartlepool voted for Brexit by the highest margin in the north-east. They are a tenacious and aspirational people who, despite having benefited from millions of pounds of EU investment over the years, somehow lost faith in Europe. Instead, they put their faith and hopes in a future outside the EU—one that gives the UK autonomy and the freedom to trade with the rest of the world and to award contracts to local businesses without forced competition. They wanted financial security, prospects for their children and the right to self-determination without interference from EU laws. They wanted all that, and quickly. My constituents are level-headed. They expected some difficulties along the line, and they knew that negotiations had to happen; what they did not expect, and rightly should not have had to expect, was that six months before leaving the EU, we would face a hard Brexit.
Negotiations are negotiations. People should not go in there empty-handed and expecting nothing. They should fight for what is right by the people. They should not promise jam tomorrow to those whose jobs and livelihoods depend on a well-managed outcome. They should not ask people to have blind faith in the future if they have nothing credible or tangible to show them that such faith will be rewarded in the long run. My constituents want proper checks and balances to be put before them. They want to see that all the right mechanisms are in place and that the negotiations will have outcomes that will protect them. That is why I am not against the idea of putting the final deal to them. No deal will cast the people of Hartlepool and the UK into darkness. It will cast them adrift. It will leave them rudderless and with no faith in those whose job is to chart their future.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My very good friend and I have slightly different views on this issue, but at a conference on Saturday, I spoke about the north-south divide and the left-behind communities in our cities and towns. How can we have a Brexit that would cause those left-behind communities to be even more left behind? Manufacturing plants would have to close, because we would have no customs arrangements to meet their requirements. Does my hon. Friend not agree that we need a deal that will keep jobs in the north?
Mike Hill
I absolutely agree, especially as my coastal community feels that it is one of the forgotten communities.
I am on record as saying that in the north-east, Hartlepool will be the true barometer for change. On that basis, I say no to a second referendum, but I also say no to no deal, and I expect to see true leadership from now on.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill). It was great to hear about his admirably level-headed constituents; my constituents in Gordon are equally level-headed.
I was inspired by the paper on the withdrawal Bill that the Secretary of State published in July. He expressed a very positive view, referring to
“a smooth transition to a comprehensive future economic and security partnership for business and citizens”.
I could not agree with him more.
Fundamentally, the Government have, in good faith, prepared for an amicable Brexit. They have reached out; they have bent over backwards; and they have pushed colleagues to the limit to work with the EU. We need a sustainable plan, welcomed by the EU and by this Parliament. We need an agreement that would lay to rest the divisions on both sides of the House. The paper states that
“it remains our firm view…to reach agreement on a good and sustainable future relationship.”
That agreement must be legally robust.
The Government are publishing papers in preparation for no deal. I am a pragmatist—a long-time business person—and I know that we cannot afford a cliff-edge no deal. As the Minister said in her opening speech, the withdrawal agreement recognises that a deal is still being negotiated; but can we explore existing EU and international rules-based agreements? They are numerous and have been signed up to by major economies—valued trading partners of the EU.
This is a balance. Is the EU willing to accept a proposal that it claims undermines its founding principles—it does not look like it—or can we cut and paste from existing, tested free trade agreements such as the comprehensive economic and trade agreement and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership to facilitate a deal honouring article 50, respecting the right to withdraw, upholding World Trade Organisation rules, recognising regulatory equivalence, protecting the union of the United Kingdom and, fundamentally, respecting the will of the people of Britain, the EU’s closest trading partner and historic ally?
We must debate the merits of a hybrid deal. I do not accept that there can be no deal. I believe that there is time—within the timetable that has been specified—to agree a framework modelled on proven free trade agreements, allowing withdrawal as laid out in article 50 and outlined in the July 2018 exit document, and leaving 18 months in which to negotiate the detail. That could be welcomed by the EU and embraced by the British Government. It would be in line with their stated aims, and it would be vastly superior to a cliff-edge so-called hard Brexit.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who is no longer in the Chamber, mentioned a super-Canada, CETA-plus arrangement, which would be a comprehensive free trade deal. An enhanced basic Canada deal could deliver 99% access to the EU single market, with no fees and no free movement. President Tusk himself mentioned it.
As the Minister said, we have made significant progress in protecting the rights of EU citizens. The oil and gas industry in Gordon values them very highly.
Peter Grant
Everyone knows that one of Scotland’s major challenges is the fact that the age profile of our population is all wrong. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the free movement of people is such a bad thing for his constituency?
Colin Clark
It is worrying that free movement into the rest of the United Kingdom has continued strongly during the Brexit debate but has fallen in Scotland. That prompts us to ask what it is about the Scottish economy and the Scottish Government that is putting people off coming to work in Scotland. It is deeply worrying that people are not moving from the south, from other countries, to work in our NHS. We are still bereft of doctors. But I will not go into that further, because to do so would diverge substantially from the subject that we are discussing.
An FTA would mean customs declarations, but let me respond to the issue raised earlier by the hon. Gentleman. The British people did vote to leave the customs union, and they did vote to leave the single market. They did that in the full understanding that it was in exchange for the return of sovereignty and self-government, and a proven free trade agreement would respect that.
We must remember that other countries that do not have FTAs do more exporting to the EU than we do. Only 12% of the UK economy and 5% of UK businesses even trade with the EU; 60% of our trade is with the rest of the world, and most of the world’s fifth largest economy—ours—is domestic. The reality is that even the EU single market for services barely exists. The European Commission’s 2014 single market integration report shows that trade integration stands at only 5% for services, compared with 22% for goods.
When the transition period begins, we will have 18 months in which to negotiate the details of an FTA or CETA-style deal. That will be mostly in the area of services, and financial services in particular. TTIP contained advanced provisions for services: the framework is there. We have an opportunity to cut and paste what already exists. As the Minister said, the purpose of the transition period is to provide certainty and consistency, and that is what my constituents in Gordon and businesses in the north-east of Scotland want to see.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
There has been much talk of a second referendum. I think that it would take Parliament eight or nine months to legislate for that, and would it not just mean a further negative in terms of inward investment and confidence in the British economy? Would it not be the worst possible outcome of all those that are being discussed?
Colin Clark
I could not agree more. The last thing that the country needs is more doubt about its politicians. The same applies to the referendum in Scotland. The people vote and trust us to represent them in a democratic system, and that is what we are here to do. We are here to make the difficult decisions, and we must be brave enough to do that.
Non-trade agreements can be made for aviation, customs and security. They can cover non-trade items such as Horizon 2020, Erasmus, or the European Aviation Safety Agency. North sea helicopter operators are a subject close to my heart, because the airport from which they fly is in my constituency. EASA needs associate access. The Government have already proposed that, but it requires an agreement, not a no deal.
A CETA-style FTA is not backward looking. It could free the UK to do its own free trade deals throughout the world. As has been said, 90% of growth over the next 10 to 15 years will be outside the European Union, and the Minister recognised that. We can build on those 65 bilateral deals the UK supported in the EU.
No deal is not an alternative; an internationally-tested FTA would be. It is said that the EU has never signed an FTA containing significant liberalisation in financial services, but the point is that it has; it has had deviations in the past, and therefore we should be ambitious about having them in the future.
Stephen Kerr
In fact, Michel Barnier himself has said:
“We are prepared to offer Britain a partnership such as there never has been with any other…country.”
That is exactly the kind of situation my hon. Friend is describing.
Colin Clark
I could not agree more. The UK’s aim of a deep and comprehensive trade agreement is a matter of degree, not principle, so this is surmountable.
Chris Bryant
But Mr Barnier’s comment is just a statement of the bleedin’ obvious, because of course the outcome will be different from anything there has ever been before because nobody has ever left the EU before. I do not think anybody should get over-excited by some mistranslated words from Michel Barnier.
Colin Clark
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I am glad he was intervening on the intervention on me.
We are either inside or outside the single market. Pragmatism shows derogations are possible, and in the latter case there have been many concessions. So is it in or out? The British people voted out; they expect us to deliver, not drive them into a cul-de-sac.
The EU has a record of FTAs—off-the-shelf agreements based on international trading rules that could protect the EU and UK industry and jobs, and that is paramount in what I want to see from this process. But without article 50 and £39 billion focusing EU negotiations, we cannot revisit this; we have to get it right the first time. The impediments are not insurmountable; we should stick to the transition timetable laid out in the withdrawal agreement, with a clear framework.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
It is especially apt that we are having this general debate today as undoubtedly Brexit will be the major issue facing us as Members of Parliament over the coming weeks and months. We are about to enter a huge parliamentary moment when it comes to the withdrawal agreement meaningful vote, and today is an opportunity for Members to outline the way ahead as we see it. Having pondered the current state of play over the summer recess, I can honestly stand here before the House and say anything could happen over the next few months. I will therefore refrain from making arguments on the type of deal required and will instead concentrate on my interpretation and how I see matters at the moment.
Future historians will not be kind to this generation of politicians for getting us to where we are now. Former Prime Minister Cameron will be judged for holding the referendum in the first place as a means of easing party management. The current Prime Minister will be judged for wasting the first two years of the leaving process by basing her policy on extreme red lines only to change her major strategic objective late in the day, as I will explain later. And the Labour Opposition will be judged for a lack of coherence in policy and playing political games with the biggest political issue of our time. Labour knows that its six Brexit tests can only be met by staying within the single market and the customs union, specifically test 2 of ensuring the exact same benefits of our current membership, yet its policy is to leave both frameworks. It is a completely cynical position to take, with its only goal being to try to use Brexit to force another general election.
I for one saw the Prime Minister’s Chequers statement of July as a significant moment. Leaving aside the near collapse of her Government due to the resignations of the Brexit and Foreign Secretaries, it outlined for the first time that the driving force of policy would be protecting the economy, not dealing with immigration. The natural development of that policy would be to come to the same conclusion as Plaid Cymru, the SNP, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats: the objective of the British state should be to stay within key European economic frameworks. Unfortunately, of course, the British Government continue to be wedded to a “have your cake and eat it” scenario, which obviously the European Union will not entertain. The French European Minister Nathalie Loiseau clearly told in the Evening Standard last Wednesday:
“We will not redefine our basic principles because the UK doesn’t want to belong to the European Union anymore.”
Much of the media attention over the summer recess has surrounded the potential for no deal as we approach the October, or what now seems to be the November, deadline in Brussels. However, while it may come to pass that talks collapse, I believe that some fudge will be agreed and that it will then come to this House for approval to trigger the necessary withdrawal legislation. At that stage, as I put it to the Brexit Secretary during his statement of 24 July, I find it difficult to see how the Prime Minister will be able to get a majority of the House to support her position.
As I said earlier in this speech, Labour’s policy is basically to use Brexit as a means of forcing a general election, and it will therefore oppose the fudge, although how that will solve the problem I do not know, because essentially Labour’s policy is not that far removed from that of the Conservative Government. The Brexit buccaneers in the Prime Minister’s party whose objective is no deal will also vote down the fudge as that would make a no deal more likely, unless they make the more nuanced calculation that the only thing that is more important for them is getting to the 29 March deadline, because after that date and once we are outside the EU anything negotiated beforehand is not worth the paper it is written on. Considering that two Secretaries of State resigned on the basis of the Chequers announcement, however, it is difficult to see how they and their supporters can back the Prime Minister.
Those of us who believe that staying within European frameworks is the only way to safeguard jobs and wages will also vote against. I am sure that the British Government will say their aim is to stay within regulatory alignment—the adoption of the so-called common rulebook—thereby easing our economic concerns. The Minister might want to correct me when summing up, but my understanding of the situation is that currently the rules governing the single market are made in Brussels and then every member state, and in some states sub-regional Governments such as Wallonia, have to endorse those changes before they become part of the European single market regulations. What the British Government are proposing is that Europe would come up with new regulations for the single market and then we would have to adopt them via statutory instrument in this place—no mention of the devolved Governments of course, but that is a separate issue. The question then arises: what happens perhaps three or four years down the line if this Parliament decides not to adopt one of those SIs? Does the whole thing collapse at that moment? I do not see how the plan currently envisaged by the British Government can be sustainable in the long term.
I will also vote against because, essentially, supporting the fudge that I envisage would mean supporting what is now being termed as a blind Brexit, which means the fine detail of the future economic relations between the British state and the European Union determined being only after the British state has left the EU. How could responsible Members of Parliament with concerns about the economic impact of Brexit make that leap of faith? I should add that the previous argument of the British Government was that the transition and the final deal would have to be negotiated together, because it was impossible to transition unless we knew what we were transitioning to, but that argument has now been long forgotten.
My final reason for voting against the expected fudge is that, by leaving the detail until after the British state is no longer a member of the EU, the balance of power in the negotiations will move even further in favour of Brussels. The current pathway to Brexit by the Prime Minister seems completely naive. The future economic partnership with the European Union will be by far the most important trade deal the British state will ever make—it will dwarf any other the British state ever makes. It is therefore beyond my comprehension why the British Government want to give further leverage away in those negotiations. Furthermore, leverage within the Conservative party at this stage will swing decisively towards the European Research Group of Brexit extremists after 29 March next year.
If my analysis is correct and the meaningful vote does not gain the approval of the House, as I said during the Brexit Secretary’s statement on 24 July, the British Government will face four choices. First, they could seek to extend article 50 to renegotiate with the European Union. That would seem sensible to me as leaving the business end of the negotiations to after the British state is outside the EU seems completely bizarre. Secondly, the British Government could call a new referendum, possibly a multi-choice one, including the Prime Minister’s proposal and, vitally, the option of staying in the EU. Thirdly, if the meaningful vote does not gain the approval of the House the Labour party will move a motion of no confidence in order to force a general election but, as I have already said, this will not offer a solution to the Brexit paralysis unless Labour drastically changes its position. Equally, the Government might move one against themselves, resigning the Conservative party to defeat and leaving the Labour party to deal with the resulting pandemonium. In fact, an option for the Government might be to include a motion of no confidence in the meaningful vote, as that would be a manner for them to deal with the challenge set by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who is no longer in his place. He said that he would not vote for the final fudge that comes back from Brussels, but he also said that he would never vote against the Government on a motion of no confidence, so that would be a way of placing him and his political followers in political difficulty.
At that stage, the likelihood is that a motion of no confidence would be carried, resulting in another election, unless an alternative Government of sensible MPs were to come together within the 14-day deadline under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and steer the British state on to a more sensible course. In the past, I have floated that idea as a pragmatic solution, and I put it on record that I do so again today.
The last likely scenario is that no deal would become inevitable by default, as opposed to by design. Over the summer, writing for The Times, I called on the British Government to remove no deal from the political theatre. As a negotiating tactic with the European Union, it has failed miserably. It has also failed to bribe this House into supporting the Prime Minister’s position. All it has done is to embolden the kamikaze side of the Conservative party. Far be it from me to offer political advice to the Prime Minister, but if she were acting rationally, she would disempower the European Research Group wing of her party by taking no deal off the table.
Politics is not a game, and our actions as Members of this House over the next few weeks and months will have far-reaching consequences. The position taken by me and my colleagues has been consistent from the day after the referendum—namely, that the economic wellbeing of our constituents has to come first and last. The British Government are eventually moving in the right direction, but they will have to move far further and far more quickly if they are to avoid the approaching slow-motion train crash.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). I rise to speak about this issue from the point of view of the people of Redditch, who are always at the forefront of my mind in this place. I remember clearly the expression of their sovereign desire to leave the EU, which they expressed in the referendum with 62% in favour of leaving. I have not found anyone in Redditch who has changed their mind during the ensuing period, even though we have been grappling with a series of extremely difficult and complicated technical issues.
We spend a lot of time in this place dealing with incredibly complex legislation, some of which has been eloquently explained tonight by hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, my constituents always come back to talking about three basic things. They voted to leave the European Union in those numbers because they wanted to take back control of their money, their borders and their laws. That brings me to something that we have not heard mentioned at all tonight. It is something that is very hard to put into figures, and it is called sovereignty. It is an emotional concept for people in my constituency and in constituencies across the United Kingdom, including Hartlepool, which we heard about earlier.
People in Redditch and across the midlands are very level-headed. They know very well that we are reliant on jobs in the manufacturing industry and in the supply chain. The excellent Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, makes this point on a regular basis. I declare an interest in that I helped him to win that election, and I am very proud that I did so. He is a businessman, and he understands the need for a deal so that those jobs can be protected. I also understand that very clearly from the businesses in my constituency, including GKN and a number of other businesses, large and small.
I come back to a point that I have made before in this House, which is that we are sometimes misled by listening to the voice of the very large corporate businesses and failing to heed the voices of the small and medium-sized enterprises. I know those SMEs intimately, because I ran one for 26 years before I came to this place. I can tell the House that there are many things that stand in the way of businesses. They face obstacles every single day as they grapple with trading conditions, whether at home or around the world. The great genius of our British entrepreneurs is that they are able to turn those obstacles into challenges and to innovate and be entrepreneurial. They are able to seize the opportunities that are provided by any state of affairs or economic situation that they face. That is why we have such a thriving and dynamic economy in this country, and why we have given rise to some of the best businesses in the world.
I asked the Minister earlier whether she believed we would be in a position to take advantage of the 90% of trade outside our European borders in the future, and she assured me that we would be in a position to start signing those deals and that we would shortly be able to move quickly to ratify them. That is why I welcome this withdrawal agreement. We have all been calling for certainty and clarity; I hear it from my constituents in the business sector all the time. This agreement will start to put in place some of the things that we have been calling for. It is not perfect, of course; there have been vigorous debates on these subjects and they will continue.
When I think about being the Prime Minister, I think, “My goodness me! Who would want to do her job?” At the end of the day, she just cannot win, can she? She cannot ever please everybody, either on our side or on the other side of the House, or in the country. We had a vote in which some people voted to stay and some people voted to leave, so she is never going to be able to please anybody. However, I hear people in Redditch saying, “Good on her. She is just getting on with it. She is facing down criticism on all sides.”
Chris Bryant
The thing is that the Prime Minister will have to please more than half the Members of this House. If she does not do so, she will not have an agreement, the whole thing will fall apart and she will be done for, won’t she?
Rachel Maclean
I have absolute confidence that the Prime Minister will continue to do what she is doing, and I for one certainly support her. If she can bring back a deal that is in the interests of my constituents, I will support her. I take heart from the way in which she has been able to make such significant progress in the face of all the criticism and of people saying, “You won’t be able to get this far. You won’t be able to make a deal. You won’t be able to settle these incredibly complicated issues. You won’t be able to unpick all these decades of agreements.” But actually, she has. She went to Africa over the summer and, again, she was in a position where she was damned if she did and damned if she didn’t. She was faced with people demonstrating their dancing skills. If she had not joined in, everyone would have said, “Oh, that’s terrible. She’s awful. She isn’t spontaneous.” What did she do? She got stuck in, and she got so much admiration from people for her dancing skills. I really think she should be on “Strictly Come Dancing”, and I would certainly vote for her to do that.
Chris Bryant
I think the Prime Minister would probably have to leave the House if she went on “Strictly”, so the hon. Lady would be voting for her to leave office.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. I hope that he will take my comments in the spirit in which they were intended; they were somewhat light-hearted. Of course I would not wish the Prime Minister to leave the House. I want her to get a great deal and to enable us to leave the European Union. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that I have put that on record.
Rachel Maclean
It certainly does, but the hon. Gentleman is making me lose my place.
I shall return to the negotiations, where we have seen considerable progress not only on the business-related issues that I have referred to but on the question of European citizens.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As an example of the negotiations that we can do, the Minister for International Trade was able to negotiate on behalf of one of the companies in my constituency, Lakeland Dairies, a £50 million powdered milk contract with China—worth £250 million over five years. Is that not an example of the good things that we will be able to do when we are outside the EU?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting some of the examples that we will see when we are out of the EU. I have seen some of the benefits in my area, too. Worcestershire is benefiting from the Department for International Trade’s forward-thinking policy of going out to the rest of the world and making the case for investing in the county, and Redditch in particular, and I hope that some of our international companies will take advantage of that.
Stephen Kerr
My hon. Friend was interrupted from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who said, “It takes two to tango.” We have evidence of the EU’s willingness to tango, particularly with the Trump Administration. At the suggestion of tariff changes from Washington, the German Chancellor was immediately on to Jean-Claude Juncker, and he was on the next flight to Washington, and they made an agreement in the same day. Is that not an example of what is possible when there is a willingness to reach an agreement?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend greatly for that intervention. If we all embrace the optimism that he has just demonstrated, I am certain that we can do some great deals in the interests of the British people and of Redditch.
I return to my point about the status of EU citizens. It is a matter of great concern. We all have EU citizens in our constituencies. I have been approached by EU citizens who live in Redditch, such as those who work at the Alexandra Hospital in Redditch, and we rely upon them to deliver the caring services that we can all need. That is why I welcome the details already set out in the withdrawal agreement, but there is more work to be done on that and we must ensure that the processes are working properly and that people get the security they need to be able to stay in our country, because that is exactly what we want. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) said, we invited people to come from the EU, and they have contributed and we want them to stay.
My final point is about women and Brexit. I am a proud feminist and agree with campaigners on many issues, but I cannot bring myself to agree with the suggestion by some notable feminist campaigners over the weekend that women do not want to leave the EU. Newsflash: women are able to make their minds up based on the issue, not their body parts. We are able to consider an issue without basing it on our gender. Amazingly enough, I feel entitled to say that because I am in a minority in this House. I have some hon. Friends on my side who are also women. I do not have any on the other side at the minute. I actually do want to leave the EU, and I am a woman, but I recognise that I do not speak for all women—women, just like men, will have a variety of opinions. However, to try to say that all women do not want to leave the EU is a lot of nonsense that I utterly refute.
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Gentleman is speaking from a sedentary position, and I am going to conclude my remarks. This Government have done more for women since being in office in terms of bringing women into work, strengthening women’s rights, bringing in policies that support women back into the workplace, such as on childcare, and a whole raft of other issues. I put it on the record that I refute that ridiculous stance about women and Brexit, which should be rejected out of hand.
In summary, I of course have some questions about the withdrawal agreement. Naturally, I expect to scrutinise the final deal that is brought back in great detail, as any Member should. I would not like to see us spend hard-earned taxpayers’ money—the £39 billion or whatever it is—unless we get something good in return. That is absolutely essential, and I would not be doing my job and would be failing my constituents if I did not hold the Government to account on that. In the negotiations so far, we have demonstrated to our international partners that we are a reliable negotiator and that we can be trusted to keep our promises, and we are sending out a signal so that they can come back and negotiate with us. That is how we will continue to build the scaffolding to deliver on the will of the people and their sovereign desire to leave the EU.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I will begin by commenting on some of the earlier contributions. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean). I am not aware that anyone has said that all women are against Brexit, but I am aware that recent polls suggest that women have switched in large numbers from leave to remain. Clearly, that does not mean that all women support remain, but there has been a switch.
I was going to suggest that the hon. Lady should perhaps get out more, but that would have been rude, because I am sure that she does get out among her constituents. However, I am rather surprised that she has found no one who has changed their mind on Brexit. There are people who have switched from supporting leave to supporting remain, but equally others have gone in the other direction. I am not quite sure about the circles in which she has been moving—perhaps they are particularly set in their ways—but I suggest that, even in her constituency, there are people whose thinking has changed in both directions.
I corroborate the analysis of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) of where the Government are at. However, he was far too generous about the legacies that David Cameron and the Prime Minister are going to leave us and about the assessment of their contribution to history, because I think things will be even bleaker than the situation that he portrayed.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) said that he did not support a people’s vote due to his worries about how badly the first vote was conducted. However, something is significantly different now. Over the past two years and three months, we have had the debates that we should have had in the run-up to the referendum. Issues such as no deal meaning that Health Ministers will require pharmaceutical companies to stockpile medicine is something that should have been in the debate before the EU referendum took place. The current debates about the impact on the economy, the pharmaceutical sector, the automotive sector, aviation and so on should have happened before the vote. I therefore hope that there will be a final say on the deal or a people’s vote and that it will be better informed debate. I accept that some players will seek to muddy the waters, but at least some of what we should have been talking about two years has been aired.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) is not in his place, because he said—I have heard him say this often—that the people he spoke to during the referendum campaign only talked to him about the single market and the customs union and understood perfectly what they both meant. Well, he and I actually shared a platform during the campaign and, although I do not have perfect recall, I am reasonably certain that the people in that exchange focused on immigration, which was clearly a major factor. Yes, there may have been some who referred to the single market and the customs union—I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman referred to them many times during that debate—but for the audience it was about immigration. People were not saying that they wanted to come out of the customs union because that would enable us to do trade deals. I appreciate the irony of the Prime Minister going to Nigeria, which is trying to negotiate a customs union with its neighbouring countries. We are leaving the customs union while Nigeria and the countries in that region are trying to establish a customs union, but such is the illogicality of much of what we are doing at present.
The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), was present for the earlier debate in Westminster Hall about article 50, but he came and sat here in the Chamber too. I was hoping that he would answer the question that I put to him during an exchange in Westminster Hall about whether article 50 was revocable, because the House is entitled to know the Government’s view. Even if the Government are not willing to reveal their hand—although they should, because Members of Parliament are entitled to know something that will be key to some of the decisions that we might be taking —I hope that the Wightman case in the Scottish courts may lead to the matter being decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which will determine whether article 50 is revocable. I think it will determine that article 50 is revocable, and I hope it can do so on a timescale that is pertinent and helpful to this debate. Of course if that happens, at least we will have demolished one of the Government’s arguments, that they cannot revoke article 50. Hopefully the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) will be able to clarify whether the Government are now willing to take a position on this or whether they will simply run with, “We are not going to answer this question, because it is not something we intend to do.”
Peter Grant
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that possibly the reason the Government will not tell us their view is that they know perfectly well that article 50 can be revoked and that the European Union would be quite willing to talk on those terms? It is not a question of legality; it is a question of obduracy and obstinacy on the part of Her Majesty’s Government.
Tom Brake
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who has of course provided the Minister with an opportunity to get rid of that obduracy by providing some transparency so that we all know the Government’s view on this.
I will speak briefly, which I am sure Conservative Members, and possibly some Opposition Members, will welcome, in part because I have a nasty feeling that we may have all this debate about a withdrawal agreement that is not then secured. We are having this debate, but the evidence from Conservative Members who are no longer in their place is that they are not going to support the Chequers agreement, and therefore we are very unlikely to have a withdrawal agreement to discuss or to vote on at some point in the future.
I hope that one thing the Minister will do in his response is to go on the record again on the question of whether, when the Government table the motion on the withdrawal agreement and the future relationships, Members of Parliament will be able to amend it to enable us to insert a people’s vote. In the same vein, I hope he will say whether, in fact, it would be in order for the withdrawal agreement Bill itself to be amended to allow a people’s vote, if Members choose to table such an amendment. I put those two specific points to the Minister, and if he has not made a note, I know that people elsewhere will have so that he is able to respond to those questions directly. If he fails to do so, I suspect I will be writing to him to require that he does respond.
The withdrawal agreement includes a transition period or, as the Government prefer to call it, an implementation period—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) that it is not entirely clear what the Government will actually be implementing during the said transition period. In many ways it is just a standstill period, as opposed to a transition period or, indeed, an implementation period.
With the transition period and with the fact that we are going to be rule takers, the Government have succeeded in uniting hard-core Brexiters and remainers. Congratulations, because there has not been much unity so far, but on that point the Government have found a way to unite two very different, opposing wings. On the one hand, nobody wants to be a rule taker; on the other, although we might want to accept rules from the European Union, we want to participate in that decision-making process, as opposed to being excluded from it.
On EU citizens and UK citizens, I am pleased with something the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) said—I am rarely so—because he called for the rights of EU citizens to be ring-fenced. We have also heard that from Labour Members, and Liberal Democrat Members support it, and I am sure Plaid Cymru and SNP Members do too. We need to park this issue. The Government could do so by saying that they are going to legislate unilaterally to provide full rights to EU citizens, regardless of what happens and regardless of whether we end up with no deal. The Government would then not have to say that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. They could say, “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but we have actually agreed the rights of EU citizens.”
I hope that would provide some reassurance to UK citizens in the EU. I am not sure what other Members are finding, but I am on the receiving end, perhaps because I am my party’s spokesman, of a steady stream of emails from people across the EU who might have lived in, say, France for 15 or 20 years but are now being asked to do things they have never been asked to do before. In some cases, elderly people are being told to drive 30 miles to a particular office to get their paperwork, which is causing them some concern. If the Government were unilaterally to agree those rights, the issue could be addressed more quickly and the concerns of many, often retired, UK citizens in the EU would be addressed.
Documents often have pages in the middle saying, “These pages are left deliberately blank.” Well, clearly that is what has happened in relation to Ireland and Northern Ireland, because, after two years and three months, we are still no closer to getting a solution to the Ireland-Northern Ireland border, unless of course the solution is, as outlined in the technical note, that if any business trading across the border has any problems it should talk to the Irish Government. It is an interesting approach from the British Government to advise British businesses that if they want answers to questions about cross-border trade, they should talk to the Irish Government. I have not previously heard of that approach, and it is not one that I would commend, but it neatly sums up the difficulties the Government have got themselves into on this question.
I am sorry that he is not in his place to hear this, but the hon. Member for North East Somerset has previously referred rather glibly to
“our ability, as we had during the troubles, to have people inspected.”
That rather neglects the impact that that might have on peace in Northern Ireland, about which Northern Ireland’s police chief, George Hamilton, has expressed great concern.
George Hamilton revealed the level of chaos surrounding preparations for the border in Ireland after Brexit, claiming that no one is in charge. He told Members that no go-to co-ordinator is actually taking responsibility for the project, which does not sound very positive. I hope that since 27 June a go-to person has been identified.
I made an intervention earlier on the divorce bill, and I was accused by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) of not supporting British business. Well, I talk regularly to British business, which is why I went, long before any DExEU Minister did, to talk to the port of Dover authorities about the impact on that port and on all the business that goes through it.
It would perhaps be more honest of the Government if they were to set it out that not only will there be the £39 billion divorce bill, give or take a little, and that European leaders, contrary to the words of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), are not going to “go whistle,” but that there is no doubt we will be making ongoing payments for a number of years thereafter—one report suggests we will be making payments until 2064. People are entitled to know that, because it slightly changes the parameters of the criteria on which people based their decision two years and three months ago. If at that point people had been told, “Well, it is a down payment of £39 billion, and then an ongoing payment, which will probably continue, certainly in relation to pensions, until 2064,” I think the outcome might have been different. Certainly people would not have swallowed or taken at face value the rather glib statements of the leave campaign.
I have a real worry, as other Members, including the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, have expressed, that what we will get in the framework, and perhaps Mr Barnier will facilitate this, is an almighty fudge—something that enables the UK Government to come back and say, “Peace in our time,” and wave a bit of paper, and that enables Mr Barnier to go on and pursue other interests that he may have. I have written to Mr Barnier and to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union asking some very precise questions about what criteria this political agreement will have to hit so that we can have some substance, a point made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). We want a very precise agreement that sets out the terms. What we do not want is a vague undertaking that achieves our getting out of the European Union and then, for the next 15 or 20 years, leaves future Governments the responsibility of trying to unpick the mess caused in seeking to achieve that exit. I hope that that will not happen and that the House would reject it. If the agreement is just the equivalent of a couple of sides of A4 with a lot of clichés and a lot of nice words about how we are going to work closely together in the future, I hope that Parliament will say no to it.
There has been a lot of reference to how EU trade deals will simply be rolled over, and how the EU has said that is fine. I have asked the embassies of the countries involved—I have also asked Ministers in parliamentary questions, but they have not really answered—how many of those countries have written to the UK Government saying that they are happy for their trade deal to be rolled over without any change. I imagine that Members can guess how many have written back to me saying that they have confirmed that: zero. Not a single embassy that has responded has been willing to put it in writing that they will allow their deal to be rolled over. Some have said that they want to reopen aspects of the deal. Good luck to the Government if they think that all 65 trade deals will simply roll over just like that, lock, stock and barrel. That is not the feedback that I have got from the countries involved.
I conclude by putting on record again the questions that I have asked the Minister, so that he really cannot escape answering: whether the Government consider that article 50 is revocable, and whether the motion that they will bring forward or the withdrawal agreement Bill itself will be amendable to allow a people’s vote. I am sure he has listened carefully twice to me asking him those questions, so I am absolutely confident that I will get simple yes/no answers when he responds.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who speaks with great passion and experience on these subjects, even if I cannot agree with much of what he says. I begin in the same vein as the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) by extending condolences to our fellow Scottish Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who recently suffered a bereavement.
As we heard earlier, it was inevitable that this Session would be dominated by the method of our departure from the European Union. The conversation taking place both inside and outside the House has left the country with the distinct view that there is little consensus about the details. I have always been clear that I voted to leave the EU, and my constituents knew that. My political opponents in Stirling, where 67% of people voted to remain, often ask me on what basis I can speak up for Stirling in the House as a Member of Parliament who voted leave. My answer is simple: the people of Stirling sent me here on the basis of our manifesto commitment. All Conservative and Unionist candidates at the election stood on a manifesto commitment to deliver Brexit, and to leave the customs union, the single market and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
Peter Grant
I respect that fact that someone who gets elected is expected to implement the manifesto commitment on which they stood, but two years earlier the hon. Gentleman stood in the same constituency on a manifesto promise of keeping us in the single market. What caused his personal journey to Damascus from 2015, when he was determined to stay in the single market, to 2017, when he was determined to get out? Or did he just change his mind because he had to so that he was allowed to stand as a Conservative candidate?
Stephen Kerr
The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. In 2015 I stood on a manifesto commitment that the Conservative party, should it be elected with a majority and form the Government of this country, would hold a referendum on our membership of the European Union. The then Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that he would go to Brussels and negotiate a better arrangement with the European Union. In the event, sadly, he came back with much less than he had promised and, in my opinion, tried to oversell it to the British people. The British people will not be sold a pig in a poke, and the inevitable consequence was that they voted to leave the EU.
Peter Grant
I am a bit surprised to have to remind a Conservative MP of what was in his own manifesto in 2015. Admittedly it is no longer available on the official Conservative party website—I wonder what the party does not want us to see—but I can assure him that it said:
“We are clear about we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market.”
I ask him again: what changed his view from wanting to stay in the single market when he stood in 2015 to wanting to get out when he stood in 2017?
Stephen Kerr
The simple answer is that we fulfilled our election commitment by holding a referendum in June 2016, when the people of this country voted to leave the European Union. That is clearly what changed. The hon. Gentleman was a little thin-skinned in his response when I intervened on him earlier but, unlike his party, the Conservative party honours and respects the outcomes of referendums. We did so in 2014 when the Scottish people voted to remain in the United Kingdom. We stand firmly on the side of the Scottish people in that judgment, as we stand on the side of the people of the United Kingdom who voted in June 2016 to leave the European Union. I have committed to the people of Stirling to come here and deliver on the outcome of that referendum, and I believe it is my responsibility to them to ensure that we in this House get the best possible Brexit for the United Kingdom. That remains my first and foremost consideration.
The electorate expect their politicians to negotiate, finalise and deliver a deal that will have their best interests at heart. I spent most of Saturday in Callander, which I recommend all right hon. and hon. Members pay a visit to—it is the most beautiful place. I was in Stirling Road, Campbell Court, Menteith Crescent and Willoughby Place, and when I knocked on doors, the people there were universally adamant about one thing, regardless of how they voted in June 2016: they want us to pull together and deliver Brexit. The people of our country have become incredibly fatigued by the squabbling and division, and they look to Members of all parties to unite and deliver the result of the referendum with a deal that is in the best interests of people in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Global Britain did some polling in my constituency last month—I am sure it will be covered in the Stirling Observer when it comes out on Wednesday—and the outcome was exactly as I have just described: people want to see us do the best we can for our country, and that we must do. That is why I continue to support the leadership of the Prime Minister. There was some scoffing earlier when my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) talked about how people see our Prime Minister, but I can tell Members that she is admired even by our political opponents, at least in my neck of the woods, because she has stuck to her job and shown a sense of duty and devotion to public service. Whether or not one agrees with her direction of travel, that is deeply admirable in her as a person. I honestly believe—in fact, I have no doubt whatsoever, and nor can any rationally-motivated person—that the Prime Minister is doing everything in her power to secure a Brexit arrangement that fulfils the instructions of the British people that were delivered through the referendum.
The Prime Minister is also dealing with the complexity of leaving the European Union. Despite the comments of Opposition Members, the British people fully embraced that complexity in a pretty full and protracted debate surrounding the EU referendum. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that the fact that people spoke in a public meeting about one particular issue but perhaps did not dwell on another logically proves—although this is actually illogical—that people did not give any consideration to whether we were leaving the single market, even though that fact was said repeatedly at the time by those on the remain side. In fact, the remain campaign even stopped calling the EU the European Union for a while and simply referred to it in those terms. The situation was well understood.
I admire my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for what she is trying to do, and I wish to make it absolutely clear that my support for her includes my support for what she set out in her speeches about Brexit at Lancaster House and the Mansion House. The Conservative party was united in its response to her Mansion House speech because the principles that she set out in it were founded on pragmatism. At the end of the day, I am a Conservative because I am a pragmatist. The difference between the Conservative party and the ideologies of other parties is that we will do what will work. That is what the Conservative Government are being guided by.
Stephen Kerr
I will. I am grateful for that intervention because it leads me nicely on to my comments about the Chequers agreement and the White Paper that followed. I think that all Conservative Members—I should really only speak for myself—are more than happy to give fair consideration to the Chequers agreement and the White Paper. The clear majority of the White Paper’s contents constitutes something to which I could readily sign up, because it talks positively about our future relationship with the European Union, which will be the subject of the process that we are discussing. It talks about co-operation and partnership, and that is the kind of future relationship with the European Union that I want. We cannot say too often from the Government Benches that while we are leaving the European Union, we are not leaving Europe.
We are not going to cut ourselves off—far from it. This is a time when we need to renew our commitment to engage with our friends and neighbours in Europe, but the British people simply no longer have an appetite to participate in the European Union project. The United Kingdom should and must continue to play a full part in the defence and security of the continent, and in the common values that bind us together as an alliance of like-minded nations that stands four-square for freedom and the rules-based international order. That was seen vividly in the response of our allies to the events in Salisbury and the Prime Minister’s statement last week.
What continually concerns me—it has come out again in this debate—is how we talk ourselves down from the strength of our negotiating position. At the weekend, while reading a magazine for investors, a paragraph caught my attention. In describing why the United Kingdom remains such an attractive place to invest in relative economic terms, it said:
“One of the most competitive tax rates in the developed world, labour market flexibility, excellent universities spawning research and development, and an innovative and industrious people, our language and the rule of law are just some of the reasons the world is knocking at the U.K.’s door”.
I must say to Ministers that my concern is that in our negotiating position with the European Union we sometimes appear—perhaps through the prism of the media, I should add—to act from a position of weakness. I say that because from listening to some people, we would imagine that we were a weak, small and poor nation that does not have a past to be proud of. We are the sixth-richest economy in the world, but we are somehow shunted off the coast of Europe, some poor island somewhere—the Russians once described us in those kind of pejorative terms. That is not how we should be behaving. The way in which some people paint us as enfeebled and a shadow of our former selves is not helpful.
I spent some of the summer in the United States. Our friends and admirers around the world are perplexed by our totally unnecessary public display of self-doubt. Why should this country behave that way? This is not the Britain I recognise.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he not think that the thing that sends the strongest possible message about self-doubt is the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union walking out of their jobs? What does he think that says about self-doubt in the Government?
Stephen Kerr
The Prime Minister said in relation to the Chequers agreement that she was restoring collective Cabinet responsibility. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what I genuinely think: I admire people who have principles. I admire him for his principles, and I admire my right hon. Friends who decided to give up positions at the Cabinet table because of their principles. As someone who has principles that he holds dear, that must be something that the right hon. Gentleman can relate to.
As I said, this is not the Britain that I recognise. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s visit to Africa has been mentioned. Possibilities exist not just for those nations that she visited—I also had the privilege of visiting Kenya at the start of the summer recess—but for us to work with those nations and to see their development. These countries, particularly Kenya, have fast-developing economies, and they would be new consumers and trading partners for our businesses. By trading and working with our African allies—this is an example of the growth in world trade that we will see as we leave the European Union that will come not from the European Union, but from the rest of the world—we will show that we can be not only participants in this renaissance of Africa, but a force for good in the world while helping our own economy in the process.
I recognise that Britain is ready to grasp these opportunities. I want our country to be a global player in the fullest sense of the word. I recognise the Britain that our European friends want to be partners with. I refer the House to a statement that was made by Donald Tusk in March:
“I propose that we aim for a trade agreement covering all sectors and with zero tariffs on goods.”
That was a very significant statement. Europe does want to make a deal with us, whether it be French wine producers, German car manufacturers or Spanish holiday companies. The prospect of a no deal is as bad for them as it is for most of us in the House. There is a mutual interest here—a win-win possibility. I want the Government to conduct these negotiations from a position of strength.
I hope that the Government will not persist in trying to sell the unsaleable with those bits of the White Paper that the European Union will not accept. The Prime Minister has played a canny hand so far, and I sincerely hope that she and the Government will now pivot away from the unsaleable elements of the White Paper, especially in relation to the common rulebook and the facilitated customs model, and refocus our future commercial relationship around what is possible, namely this unprecedented bespoke free trade agreement between the EU27 and the United Kingdom.
I cannot conclude without saying something more about Scotland, but before I do, let me say that I associate myself with many of the comments that have been made by Conservative Members about the £39 billion that we have seemingly committed. We should definitely question the value for money behind that kind of exchange of currency.
It has been said by people from all parties that somehow or another Brexit presents a moment of stress for the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The truth is that that is the Union that matters the most to me. I often say that I did not sleep very much in the weeks leading up to the referendum in 2014. That was a time of intense worry and concern for me, and I felt nothing like that before the June 2016 vote. The Union that matters the most to me and to millions of Scots is the Union that we have with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Here are the realities to stem any thought—other than the flight of imaginative fancy that we hear from nationalist politicians in Scotland and in this place—that there would be any desire to break up this hugely successful Union of nations that we call the United Kingdom: Scottish exports to the United Kingdom are worth £46 billion; Scottish exports to the rest of the world are worth £17 billion; and Scottish exports to the EU27 are worth £13 billion. According to the Fraser of Allander Institute, 125,000 Scottish jobs are related to EU exports—I do not want to lose one of them—but 529,000 Scottish jobs are related to business with the rest of the United Kingdom. These are the economic facts of life.
I was sent here by the people of Stirling to help to deliver a deal that will make the best of Brexit, which is an issue of paramount importance. If we get this wrong, it will haunt British politics for a generation and do lasting damage to our standing in the world and to our economy. This is a time for self-confidence, not self-doubt. We have good cards to play in these negotiations, and it is time for our Government to play them and play them well.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is enormous delight to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr). One of my earliest memories is of dancing the highland fling in Stirling castle many, many moons ago. That is a dance, of course, that can be done entirely on one’s own. The trouble is that, as with most dances, when it comes to Europe, it is not just a question of it takes two to tango; there are 27 other member states, plus the Commission, let alone the negotiations that have to be done in this House and in Parliament.
I find this really difficult because I think that this country is making a monumental mistake. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face, sticking a pen in our eye—I do not know how to describe it. I just think that it is a monumental mistake that will be catastrophic for our future relations with other countries and for the trade that we do with other countries. All the new trade that we are talking about with all these other countries does not add up to the trade that we do with France and Germany. And that will continue to be the case in the future. It is especially true for Wales, whose single biggest trading country is not the United States of America, Australia, or any of these countries in Africa or Latin America; it is Germany.
I worry that this country is perpetrating an enormous own goal. Of course, I know that people voted for it, but I think that it is a massive distraction. My constituents in the Rhondda do not want me to be debating this tonight. They want us to be debating: why people who work 40 hours a week still might not be able to put enough food on the table for their children to be able to eat; why children from poor backgrounds still do not have the same opportunities as children from rich areas of the country; and why on earth Westminster manages to get vast amounts of money from the Government to subsidise its council tax, whereas Rhondda Cynon Taf gets barely a penny. Those are the things that my constituents are worried about. They are worried about their jobs, whether there will be houses for their children and what the future holds. I honestly think that they just see all this as a massive distraction.
I feel so angry with David Cameron, because in the end he appeased the far right in this country. Of course, lots of people are always tempted by appeasement of the far right, because it makes a lot of noise. Historically, there has always been a temptation to say, “Yes, all right, we’ll give you a little bit of ground and try to quieten you.” But, actually, the message that we have known for centuries is that if we try to appease somebody, all they do is consume us. That is exactly what happened to David Cameron and that is why we had the referendum in the first place.
I also worry that the Labour party sometimes wants to do similarly. We do not call it appeasement, of course; we call it triangulation. We used to say, “The Tories are massively Eurosceptic and the Liberal Democrats are ludicrously pro-European, but we are the sane, sensible people going down the middle.” But if we triangulate in politics, all we actually do is give up on our own values and principles and surrender a piece of political territory to somebody else. So I say sorry to the Liberal Democrats; I warn hon. Members, I will not say that very often.
I enormously respect how people voted, including in my own constituency, but I have no respect whatever for the people who lied to the country in the referendum. I am not saying that the remain campaign was pure—far from it. It tried to rely on fear far too often and created bogeymen who never really existed. But the lies on the leave side were just spectacular.
“Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market”,
said Daniel Hannan, and now we have heard countless Government Members and the Prime Minister say, “Oh no, everybody voted to leave the single market.” Well, which was the truth?
We were told, “Turkey is joining the European Union and we cannot prevent it.” There is no prospect of Turkey joining the European Union. We were told, “We can get net migration down to the tens of thousands,” as if to suggest that the European Union provided more of the net migration than the rest of the world—that even with all the rules that were brought in in 2010 curtailing migration visas for families, for people bringing in their spouses and all the rest of it from outside the European Union, the number of people coming by those routes, where we have complete control, was still higher than the hundreds of thousands. It was a completely fallacious argument, and, again, part of the appeasement of the far right.
We were told, “Health tourism costs us billions in the European Union.” There is absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. Indeed, Spanish politicians will say, “Actually, there is quite a lot of health tourism from the UK to Spain.” That has yet to be sorted out. “The Irish border will be unaffected,” we were told. This is the bit I really do not understand. How can we take control of our borders if we do not have border controls? That is basically what the Government are trying to work out. They have been pursuing that unicorn for quite a while now, and I suspect that they will still be pursuing it when we get to Christmas and they start looking for Father Christmas instead.
We were told:
“There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside.”
Yet every single estimate that the Government have made has shown that they know that there will be considerable downsides to Brexit. They may argue that there are upsides as well, but nobody in the Government is arguing that there will be no downsides. We were told, “Every single penny that Wales gets from the European Union will be guaranteed by the Government.” We still have to hear anything about providing that amount of money for Wales.
It is not just lies, though—some of the comments were just delusional:
“The day after we vote to leave”
a Cabinet member said,
“we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want.”
That is not quite how it has worked out over the past two years, is it? We were told:
“Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy—the UK holds most of the cards.”
We were told:
“The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history”,
yet there is still no prospect of anything of the kind. The Government said:
“We’re not really interested in a transition deal, but we’ll consider one to be kind to the EU.”
Yet only weeks after they made that statement, the UK suddenly realised that we were in real danger of a completely chaotic collapse out of the European Union and went begging to the EU for a transition. Finally, we were told that the UK would owe no money to the European Union after it left in March 2019. Yet we know perfectly well, as even the Minister has admitted today, that we have debts and we will end up having to pay them.
I mention all those things because I think that when we triggered article 50, we were far, far too precipitous. The Government had no idea of what they wanted to get out of the negotiations; they had not even started the process of putting together their negotiating strategy. [Interruption.] That is why I voted against triggering article 50, before the Minister says anything. At the time, I said, “I realise that this is the opposite of the way that my constituents have voted, but in honesty I can only vote according to my conscience. I believe that this will be bad for my constituents, and if they choose to throw me out at the next general election, then I’ll have to live with it.” I had not quite expected that the next general election would be six weeks later, but I doubled my majority, so all is well that ends well, I suppose.
The problem remains for us that there is not then much in the Venn diagram. If we want to make a Venn diagram of what the European Union treaties will allow, what the ERG grouping within the Conservative party will allow, what sane and sensible members of the Conservative party and the Conservative Government will allow, what the Labour party will vote for and what Parliament will vote for, there is simply no space in the middle. That is why Opposition Members who are remainers keep on saying that the danger of no deal—and a chaotic no deal at that—is very real. That is why I ask questions of the Minister. I have asked two Ministers now about something that every single British holidaymaker or businessman or woman who has to work elsewhere in the European Union fully understands: which passport queue—the British people know all about queuing—will we get in when we arrive in France, Germany, Spain or Greece next year? It is a very simple question, and so far, no Minister has an answer.
The attempt at an answer that was provided earlier by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), is useless. It just does not wash—as she perfectly well knows, which is why she is smiling so elegantly—because nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. There is no transition period until we have agreed all three different stages of what we have to go through. That is why the Government should have a policy now on where British passport holders will queue when they arrive in other countries of the European Union next year and where EU citizens will queue when they come here, because someone will have to start recruiting passport officers to staff those control points.
One thing that particularly bewilders me about the way that the Government are choosing to do their business is that, yet again, we are debating a theoretical Bill—a piece of legislation that does not exist. Of course, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), is sucking his pen and thinking, “Well, that’s always the basis when you have a White Paper.” That is true, but this is a very theoretical Bill. There is no certainty that there will be such a Bill. There is no certainty about what will be in it. The White Paper even admits that the Government have referred to some things but are not yet certain whether other things will be included.
The Government’s chosen course of action in relation to residence rights is quite disturbing. I suspect that we will have an immigration Bill at some point. If this country is leaving the European Union, we will have to have a new immigration policy. Unless I have missed it, we still have not even had a White Paper on an immigration Bill. The Government, as far as I understand it, have no policy at the moment on what our future immigration rules should be.
When making very significant changes to the way that we conduct our business that affect thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people living in this country and our citizens, it is a mistake to rely on secondary legislation. But that is precisely what this White Paper says we will do in relation to residence rights. Government Members will say, “Oh yes, but we have been doing that ever since 1971 when we changed our immigration rules,” but I think that that has been a mistake. It was a mistake in 2010, for instance, only on the back of secondary legislation, to change the rules on visas for spouses by increasing the amount of money someone has to earn in the UK to £18,600. That was not understood by the vast majority of people. I think that if that had been put to the House in primary legislation, it would not have been carried.
It is a phenomenal mistake, therefore, to use secondary legislation to go down this course—especially since in the past, the whole premise of secondary legislation was that if the Leader of the Opposition or a significant number of people in the House prayed against a statutory instrument, there would be, in proper time, a debate and a vote in the Chamber of the House of Commons, but in recent years, the Government have repeatedly refused to provide that, and on very significant issues. If the Government intend to change the rules on residence rights for EU citizens in the UK by an SI later this year, I certainly will not support them, and I will point out time and again that government happens by consent, and a Government do not gain consent by sneaking things in through the back door.
I have one final point to make, which is about the timetable. I honestly think that the Government are leaving all of this far, far too late. I return to the point about government by consent. A Government have to take the people with them, and they have to make sure that the legislation is in good nick, preferably before it is presented to the House and certainly before it ends up becoming law. However, I am guessing that everybody has now given up on October as the date for the negotiation to end. It looks as though Michel Barnier has done so. The EU is now proposing 13 November for a special summit meeting, as I note from the media today, and I guess we may then have a meaningful vote. I use the term “meaningful vote” advisedly. I do not know how we can have a meaningful vote under the terms of the withdrawal Act, because all the motion will say is that this House has noted the fact that there has been a debate, and if hon. Members vote against that, it will have no meaning whatsoever. Let us say that the meaningful vote is perhaps on 20 or 21 November, because the Government will want to get their ducks in a row, but as has happened quite often, that may be delayed—perhaps to the last week in November.
On the back of that, legislation will have to be drafted to implement the deal. I have never—never once—known a Bill of the extent we are talking about being drafted by parliamentary draftspeople in less than six months, even on things that really mattered, so I suspect that that will be a tall order. I suspect the Minister will stand up and say, “Oh, no. We’ve got all of this written out. It is just a question of crossing some bits out and putting some other bits in. It’s going to be dead easy. We will be able to produce a Bill, following the negotiation day and after the meaningful vote, within a week.” I doubt it, but perhaps that is what he is going to say.
Let us say that that means First Reading is in December. We cannot have Second Reading on the same day as First Reading, unless a motion of the House is carried to that effect, and I think that would be a dodgy business because hon. Members would not have been able to see the Bill before we started talking about it. I therefore presume that Second Reading is very unlikely before Christmas. Will there be a Report stage—sorry, a Committee stage—of 10 working days? I cannot believe we will devote all of January to a single piece of business, so the legislation may be out of the House of Commons by 14 February—maybe, but I suggest that is a tall order for such a piece of legislation. It will then go to the House of Lords, where the Government cannot control the timetable at all. The only bit of the timetable they can control is when Parliament prorogues and the whole lot is lost.
The point is that there is no prospect at all of getting this legislation in place between mid-November and the end of March—absolutely no prospect whatsoever—unless the Government are going to use every trick in the book to make sure we cannot have proper debates or end up with proper legislation. In other words, they will have to shove as much as they can through in secondary legislation and allow barely enough time to get through proper amendments in this Chamber, let alone in the House of Lords, with the single threat of the sword of Damocles hanging over everybody. I just cannot see it happening.
I will end with the hon. Member for Stirling.
Chris Bryant
I do not doubt for a single instant that the Government have already started doing so—I am certain of it—and if they have not done so, they are in doolallyland. They should certainly be getting on with that. It was crazy to have started article 50, but it would be even crazier to stick with that date if they cannot produce proper legislation so that there is legal certainty in the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister has gone several rounds with the English language, given all her sentences such as “Brexit means Brexit” and “No deal is better than a bad deal”, when no deal is actually the worst possible kind of deal we could possibly end up with. In her first letter to Donald Tusk, she herself said that, if there is no deal on everything, there is no deal on security. She therefore knows perfectly well that, if there is no deal, she is—we are—compromising the security of this country and of other countries in the European Union.
The Prime Minister knows that the Chequers deal is dead—it is not going anywhere. She would be better off tabling a motion on the Chequers deal, for us to debate the moment we get back in October and discover that there is no majority for it in this Chamber. That is one of the reasons there will be no deal. I suspect that in the end she will be begging Parliament for a people’s vote, so that the people can decide the right outcome for us all.
The hon. Member for Stirling expressed enormous respect and admiration for the Prime Minister, as did the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean)—it is great to see her back in her place; waving, not drowning. I honestly think that the real disaster of this Prime Minister is that she knows perfectly well in her heart of hearts that this will damage Britain. No Prime Minister has ever brought to this House a project that they themselves did not even believe in. That, in the end, is why I believe this will prove to be the greatest catastrophe we have ever engaged in.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not hear your dulcet, quiet tones, after the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) left us so full of hope and optimism. It is a great pleasure to follow him, of course.
As I have said many times before, we are engaged in the most challenging negotiations of a generation. It should come as no surprise that the legislation that goes with it is extremely complex and challenging. The coming weeks and months will be crucial. The negotiations will intensify as they reach their conclusion, and so too must our work here. I believe that the vast majority of people in the UK and across the EU want to find a pragmatic and amicable long-term relationship. However, as I have said many times since the referendum, some politicians, in this country and elsewhere, will seek to disrupt that for their own political gain, because some will benefit politically from chaos. We must avoid that.
Some of the Members who have spoken tonight have made objections on technical and ideological grounds, but for many people these decisions are not just technical; they will have a real and direct impact. I am thinking, in particular, of those affected by the citizens’ rights issues, whether EU citizens living in my constituency of Chelmsford, or UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU. I am reminded that today is Gibraltar Day. The citizens of Gibraltar of course need the withdrawal agreement to be stable. Finding a solution to these issues is vital. That is why I welcome the extra pace and energy of the team at the Department for Exiting the European Union, and why legislating for the withdrawal agreement is so crucial.
I voted to remain, but I do not see how a second referendum would solve these complex issues. It would risk undermining the confidence that people put in politicians, because we did tell them that it was their choice. I also think that some of those who are lobbying for a second referendum have not thought about the complex political situations in many other European countries at this time, especially in the run-up to the next European elections. It is right to try to close as much of these negotiations as possible before those elections, when many of the people on the other side of the negotiating table will change. In order to agree the terms of withdrawal, we also need clarity on the long-term arrangement, which is why the future framework decisions also need to be agreed.
Let me remind the House of the different options. First, a no-deal Brexit would bring many uncertainties. As we saw in the paperwork released over the summer, it is absolutely right that the Government endeavour to mitigate some of those uncertainties, but it is certainly not the preferred solution. Secondly, a Norway-style relationship, staying in the single market and the customs union, would bring huge challenges, as I know from my own experience. One challenge would be needing to keep the free movement rules, which were such a major issue to many voters in the referendum. The other big challenge is being a rule taker, especially on very sensitive issues such as fishing, farming and financial services, areas where, in my experience in Europe, there was often a great difference of approach.
Thirdly, the Canada-style free trade agreement, Canada-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus, may sound quite attractive, but the EU negotiators simply are not offering us that. They may offer us a free trade agreement, but only for England, Wales and Scotland, leaving a different arrangement for Northern Ireland that puts the border in the Irish sea. I was in Northern Ireland on Friday and Saturday. It is very clear how many people are becoming extremely frustrated by the void that has been left by not having any local decision making. So many decisions have been put on hold: not just Brexit decisions, but decisions on health, education and projects for new roads. These projects have been fundamentally agreed, but not signed off. I believe in the Union. I believe in the United Kingdom. If we want to keep our country together, we should not underestimate the sensitivities of Northern Ireland at this time and the importance of finding a solution. It has to be a solution that works for all of the UK, while respecting the Good Friday agreement.
We therefore have to find a fourth way, which is what the Government have now agreed in great detail in the White Paper, Chequers and in many other papers since, and what they have gone in to negotiate. Unlike many other speakers tonight, I am not going to start pulling the Chequers agreement to pieces, because we are one country negotiating with 27 other countries. It may not be perfect in every detail, but it has very, very, very many details that have been widely welcomed by many of the companies, businesses, people and individuals affected by those details.
Vicky Ford
Every time—I see an Opposition Member jumping up and down—any one of us on this side of the channel starts pulling our own Government’s negotiating position to pieces without focusing on the details, we create much greater uncertainty for the negotiators on the other side of the table.
Vicky Ford
No. The hon. Gentleman spoke for long enough. I am not going to take an intervention.
We need to be careful. If we are going to raise points on the White Paper, let us make sure those points are truly valid and not scaremongering. There would be a real issue if we were left rule taking in areas such as financial services, where often we have a different economic balance from other European countries, but the White Paper does not do that. On the three Fs in particular, fishing, farming and financial services, we would not be a rule taker. We would have common rules on goods, but actually all trade deals have some form of common rules on goods. The deeper the trade deal one wants, the more one needs to have a common approach to the goods that go across the border. Europe is our largest trading partner, so presumably we want the deepest trade deal. Eighty per cent. of the rules that are set on the goods across the EU are not set by politicians anyway; they are set by the businesses, as part of the trade between different businesses.
When I think about my eight years in the European Parliament and I think about the number of times the UK and the rest of Europe had a fight about rules affecting a good, I could count those issues on the fingers of my two hands. When I try to then think about the ones we really did come to blows about, I end up with the fight we had over washing-up gloves. Am I really going to try, just because from an ideological point of view I do not want to be a rule taker on goods, to pull down the Government’s entire negotiating position because of some fight we once had about washing-up gloves? Some of the fights and ideological rows about the Chequers White Paper are not based on reality, pragmatism or the experiences that every one of our constituents has when they go out shopping for goods. The clock is ticking. We need a deal with the EU and it needs certainty.
The one thing I would say to Opposition Members is that, if they want to help to create more certainty, can they please be clearer about what their position will be when the Government come back with a deal that follows the broad parameters of the Chequers agreement? If Opposition Members would vote for it, or at least say that they will abstain, it would have a much greater chance of being delivered through the negotiations and creating the certainty that my constituents—all of our constituents—need.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
These events are not the draw they once were perhaps, but every contribution has been brilliantly delivered and it has been an interesting debate, with great contributions. To pick two entirely at random, I single out those from my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Both of them stood out because they described no deal as something that their constituents would find intolerable. I wonder what message the Minister will glean from this debate, given that the single contribution in favour of the Government’s strategy came from the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford). Perhaps he will say in his speech what messages he will take away from the debate and what changes may be in the offing for the Government’s negotiating position.
Jenny Chapman
He is the only one who has not resigned—yet. There is still time.
I remind hon. Members of the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who asked some important questions. I hope that the Minister will reply to them. If the withdrawal and implementation Bill ever sees the light of day, it will be an important measure that sets out our arrangements with the EU for the next two years, providing the legal basis for EU citizens to retain their rights; approving the payment of a large financial settlement with the EU; and putting in place a legally operable backstop in Northern Ireland. The House must have the chance to carefully scrutinise legislation of such importance.
With more than 80% of the withdrawal agreement agreed, the Government’s lawyers will have started to put that into draft UK legislation. There is no reason Parliament cannot see draft clauses now. Pre-legislative scrutiny would provide further certainty for EU citizens, and it would provide for better scrutiny of the legislation. Hopefully that would allow us to avoid the farce of the Government introducing legislation that they have to repeal and amend before its main powers come into force, or the Government trying to railroad Parliament with a raft of widely drawn Henry VIII powers at the final hour.
I was going to say that there is an elephant in the room, but many Members have pointed out that there will be no withdrawal and implementation Bill if there is no withdrawal agreement to implement. It should not be in question, but the Government have mishandled the negotiations and there is great uncertainty with fewer than 40 days to go until the October Council.
Two fundamental stumbling blocks remain. First there is Northern Ireland and the backstop. Both the UK and the EU made a solemn commitment in December to deliver a legally binding backstop that prevents a border with physical infrastructure between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I regret to say that a small number of Members believe that this is a problem best ignored. They remain under the illusion that the Irish border is an imagined or exaggerated problem, or that new and uninvented technology will provide an answer. That is not only irresponsible but misunderstands the significance of the open border as the manifestation of peace. It is about identity, not technology. Unfortunately that small group of Members count among their number former members of the Cabinet, including the former Foreign Secretary. That has surely held back any progress in the negotiations.
With just weeks to go, it is time for both sides to work together to reach an agreement that puts into force the backstop agreements made in December and which can command the support of all communities in Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich argued, it will be easier to reach agreement on the backstop if both sides do not believe it will ever come into force, and if they believe that the future partnership will allow for frictionless trade and a border without physical infrastructure and will be ready to come into force at the end of the transitional arrangement.
That, however, brings us to the second stumbling block in the process of Parliament’s approving the withdrawal agreement: there has been little or no progress on the political declaration on the future relationship—in fact, negotiations have barely begun. The story is one of catastrophic political failure. The Government did not publish a plan until 18 months after triggering article 50, and when it was published, it was a cobbled-together compromise designed first and foremost to keep the Cabinet together—in that, it failed, and the Tory civil war has continued.
Much more importantly, the Chequers proposals have failed to provide a basis for reaching an agreement on the future partnership with the EU. The EU chief negotiator has made it clear that the Commission is fundamentally opposed to two aspects of the proposals: the facilitated customs arrangement, which is a bureaucratic nightmare and threatens to puncture the EU customs union, and the so-called common rulebook, which picks and chooses which bits of the single market the Government want to participate in. There is no indication of a groundswell of opinion among member states against the Commission, and even if there was, a Chequers-style deal would not have the support of this Parliament, as we have clearly seen this evening.
The Chequers proposals do not go anywhere near far enough for the Labour party. The facilitated customs proposals are unworkable and bureaucratic; the enhanced equivalence provisions on services are inadequate and would erect significant barriers to trade; and the non-regression provisions on social and employment protections are weak and could lead to the UK falling behind the highest standards. As we have heard today, it is not acceptable either to large parts of the Tory party, whom the Prime Minister has indulged for too long in their fantasy that they can have a close economic partnership with the EU without any obligations and whom the Prime Minister does not have the political authority to stand up to.
We are now at the most crucial stage of the Brexit process, yet the Government have no credible plan for our future relationship with the EU and no viable solution to the Irish border issue, and there is no majority in the Commons for the Chequers proposals. The Government cannot conduct the final stage of the negotiations without acknowledging this reality. They must go back to the drawing board. They need to come back with a policy that has a chance of achieving a majority in the House and which eliminates the need for a border with physical infrastructure in Northern Ireland. If they do not, they will not get a withdrawal agreement through the House, there will be nothing to implement and they will have failed in the most important set of negotiations this country has faced since the second world war.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
It is a pleasure to listen to the whole debate and to be able to make some points at the end. I note the rare lack of the constraint of a time limit, but I do not intend to detain the House too long. I am mindful of the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who promised us a short speech—something the whole House was ready to cheer on—only for his promises to turn out as honest as the average Liberal Democrat election leaflet.
Mr Walker
The right hon. Gentleman raised lots of questions, many of which have been answered previously. I refer him to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) gave when he said he could not envisage motions of the House that would not be amendable. Of course we will have parliamentary scrutiny and debate, but the House has repeatedly voted against the concept of a second referendum, which the right hon. Gentleman supports, and will, I suspect, continue to do so.
As has been pointed out, there have been some unusual agreements between the Opposition Front Bench and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), for instance, on some aspects of the debate. There has been wide-ranging discussion about the future partnership, the Chequers agreement and so forth, but the debate has focused on legislation for the withdrawal agreement and, indeed, on the White Paper.
I particularly enjoyed the powerful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who—as her constituents, my near neighbours, often tell me—is always a breath of fresh air. We also heard some thoughtful comments from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill), who gave some of the reasons why his constituents had voted Leave and why he did not believe that a second referendum was appropriate. I share the passion felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) about our precious Union, and his confidence in the success of this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) spoke a great deal of sense, as she always does.
The withdrawal agreement Bill is a vital step in the delivery of the outcome of the referendum. Its purpose is simple and straightforward: to give effect to the agreement that we will have reached with the EU, an agreement that we fully intend to reach in the coming weeks—and it is interesting to note that, during our debate, there have been confident predictions from Michel Barnier that an agreement can indeed be reached within that period.
The Bill will be introduced only once the vote on the final deal has been held. It will therefore be the means by which Parliament’s decision—and, more important, the decision of the British people to leave the EU—is delivered in our law. As we heard from the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), Royal Assent will have to take place before exit day if the withdrawal agreement is to have domestic legal effect. It is precisely because the window of passage is constrained that we published the White Paper in July.
I found it slightly extraordinary that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) simultaneously criticised us for publishing a White Paper on legislation that was not yet complete, and called for more pre-legislative scrutiny. The whole purpose of the White Paper—and, indeed, of the debate—is to ensure that Parliament can have its say. We wanted to maximise Parliament’s ability to express its views on the Bill, including before its introduction, and I welcome the wide range of passionately held views that we have heard today.
There are some key themes on which I want to reflect, and the first is that of parliamentary scrutiny. We recognise that parliamentary scrutiny has a vital role to play in the exit process. Having heard from the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone—sadly, he is no longer in the Chamber —and a number of other long-standing members of his Committee, I can say it is important that we are discussing a White Paper that Parliament has had time to consider before legislation is published. It follows more than 250 hours of parliamentary debate on the Bill that became the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, to which the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) referred, 110 ministerial statements to both Houses of Parliament, and more than 40 appearances before Select Committees by Ministers in my Department since July 2016.
Members on both sides of the House have rightly highlighted the importance of providing certainty for not only EU citizens in the UK, but UK nationals in the EU. The parts of the agreement that have already been agreed will safeguard the rights of those individuals and their families. The withdrawal agreement Bill will be the primary means by which the rights of EU citizens will be underpinned in the UK. It will give certainty to EU citizens living here on rights of residency, and on access to healthcare, pensions and other benefits. That means that EU citizens will continue to be able to lead their lives broadly as they do today. Let me reiterate our message, and the message that the Prime Minister has sent to EU citizens:
“we want you to stay; we value you; and we thank you for your contribution”
to our country. That was echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and for Redditch.
The Bill will ensure that EU citizens can rely on the rights set out in the withdrawal agreement, and can enforce them in UK courts. It will also establish an independent monitoring authority to oversee the UK’s implementation of the citizens’ rights deal, providing further reassurance for citizens that their rights will be protected.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) asked about the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. We have reached agreement on a number of areas. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that regarding the citizens’ rights agreement, articles paragraphs (1) and (2) of article 27 of the withdrawal agreement provide for ongoing administrative co-operation in respect of MRPQ. We will return to that issue in our ongoing conversations about the future relationship.
I also listened carefully to the points made—with appropriate passion, I think—by the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) and for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) on Northern Ireland. We have been clear from the start of this process that we will deliver on all our commitments in that regard—not only on the reciprocal rights of British and Irish citizens, the common travel area and the absence of a hard border, but those other areas of north-south co-operation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has confirmed in this House, we expect the withdrawal agreement Bill to implement our commitments on Northern Ireland, including the backstop. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) referred to, and quoted from, the joint report. We stand by all our commitments in that report. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, I echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments about and good will towards the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). All Members send her our good wishes and condolences.
The status of EU citizens in this country in the event of no deal was raised a number of times, although it is not really the topic of the debate. Providing certainty for citizens has been a priority for both parties to the negotiations. We do not want or expect a no-deal outcome, but should we be unable to reach a full agreement with the EU, the Secretary of State has made it clear that the prospect of us not moving swiftly to secure their legal position or having people removed from this country is far-fetched and fanciful—it simply would not happen. As we have heard, these individuals make valuable contributions to our communities and our economy, and we would not want to lose them. That sentiment was echoed by those of all viewpoints in the referendum debate.
I am pleased to observe a degree of support across the House, especially from my hon. Friends the Members for Gordon (Colin Clark), for Chelmsford and for Redditch, for the implementation period. Colleagues clearly recognise the need to provide citizens and businesses with certainty as we leave the EU. They should have to prepare for only one set of changes—I hear that day in, day out from businesses. It is notable that when the agreement on the implementation period was reached in March, the CBI said it would help to protect living standards, jobs and growth. The Federation of Small Businesses said it would help protect small businesses from a damaging cliff edge and the Scotch Whisky Association said it would provide welcome reassurance.
I want to provide clarity on several points about the implementation period. First, it is strictly time-limited. That is the case owing to necessity—if it were not time-limited, it would be not a transitional period, but a permanent relationship. That time-limited nature will be reflected in the Bill, with the relevant provisions sunsetted so that they expire at the end of December 2020. Some queries were raised about the domestic legal basis for the implementation period. Let me assure the House that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, a vital piece of legislation, will continue to play the role that Parliament intended. The amendments made to that Act by the withdrawal agreement Bill will be technical. They will simply defer some parts of the Act, such as the domestication of EU law into retained EU law, so that they take effect at the end of the implementation period rather than on 29 March, when we leave the EU. That will ensure that the Act can operate in the correct context and that Parliament’s time in scrutinising legislation has been well spent.
This means that the European Communities Act will still be repealed in March 2019. However, it will be necessary to ensure that EU law continues to apply in the UK during the implementation period as it does now. That was what we agreed in the discussion on the implementation period. That will be achieved by way of a transitional provision whereby the Bill will amend the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 so that the effect of the European Communities Act is saved for a time-limited implementation period. Exit day as defined by that Act will remain as 29 March 2019. This approach will provide legal certainty to businesses.
I listened carefully to the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset about a different approach on legislation during the implementation period, but the agreed terms for that period require us to keep pace with changes to EU law, the majority of which will already have been initiated and subjected to scrutiny. That will be an essential component of maintaining terms of trade on the same basis.
I want to reassure the House that, as the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, said, the UK will be able to strike new trade deals with partners around the world during this period. I look forward to seeing these opportunities unfold. We will be able to negotiate and sign such trade deals during that period, to come into force immediately afterwards.
We have had a lively debate on the financial settlement, with analogies made to shopping, to bars and to golf clubs. The negotiated financial settlement will clearly continue to be of great importance to Members, and they are absolutely right to raise it and to want to scrutinise it. I emphasise that the withdrawal agreement covers the UK’s financial commitments to the EU and the EU’s financial commitments to the UK. It provides certainty to current recipients of EU funding, including farmers, businesses and academics, with the UK continuing to receive payments due under the current EU budget plan. We are a country that honours our obligations, but let me be clear that if one side fails to live up to its commitments, there will be consequences for the deal as a whole, and that includes the financial settlement. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset pointed out, nothing is agreed in these negotiations until everything is agreed, and I can assure him that this country will always say no to wasting taxpayers’ money.
I emphasise that both sides are committed to agreeing the framework for the future relationship alongside the withdrawal agreement. It is our firm view that the withdrawal agreement itself must include a commitment requiring the framework for the future relationship to be translated into text as soon as possible. The Government will pay careful attention to the points that have been made during this debate on the scrutiny of the financial settlement.
A number of hon. Members mentioned devolution and the withdrawal agreement Bill. I want to reiterate, and to state firmly, that we are committed to working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the Bill works for all parts of the UK. I am pleased with the engagement that has taken place with them to date—through, for instance, the ministerial forum. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, such engagement has happened at ministerial and official level. It has been positive and constructive, and I know that at one of the most recent meetings of the forum, the devolved Administrations were able to welcome the fact that they had been given advance notice of the White Paper and that information had been shared with them.
John Redwood
Before the Minister finishes talking about the money, will he tell us a bit more about how conditionality will be defined and enforced?
Mr Walker
I have already touched on that point in my comments. Clearly we need the framework for the future relationship alongside the withdrawal agreement. When Parliament votes—both on the meaningful vote and on the withdrawal agreement Bill—it will want to see that we are getting value for money. That is something that our negotiating counterparts are clearly aware of, and I refer my right hon. Friend to the comments that I made earlier.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford noted, today is Gibraltar day, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in extending our warmest wishes to the people of Gibraltar. The Bill does not cover Gibraltar, because it is responsible for passing its own EU exit legislation, but the UK Government are committed to fully involving Gibraltar as we leave the EU together, to ensure that its priorities are understood. The primary forum is the Joint Ministerial Committee (GEN)—Gibraltar European Union negotiations—which I chair, and I want to reassure the people of Gibraltar that we will never enter into arrangements under which they would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their wishes, or enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar was not content. As the Prime Minister has said, we joined the EU together and we are leaving together, and from next year we step forward into a new chapter of our history together.
I reiterate my thanks to all Members who have spoken in the debate. This legislation is vital to our smooth and orderly exit from the EU. It will protect the rights of EU citizens in this country, pay the negotiated financial settlement and give effect to the implementation period. The White Paper provides further clarity and certainty to people and businesses about how we will implement the final agreement we reach with the EU in UK law. I welcome the views that we have heard from both sides of the House and I look forward to continuing to work with Parliament in preparing for our withdrawal. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling put it so well when he said that people want to see us deliver a successful Brexit for the whole of the United Kingdom, and that is what the White Paper and the Government are focused on delivering.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered legislating for the withdrawal agreement.
Gypsies and Travellers
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Given the extra time we have tonight, I am happy for other Members not only to intervene, but to make their own contributions after I have spoken, because the Minister will still have plenty of time to respond to all the concerns expressed around the House.
I am extremely proud to represent an area that has successfully integrated different nationalities over the years, resulting in good community cohesion. Italians, Polish and Irish nationals are all well established and make a fantastic contribution to the area that I am proud to represent. My constituency has many Traveller sites, but a planning policy of segregation and separation makes integration and community cohesion hard to achieve. The 2011 census showed that over three quarters of Gypsies and Travellers generally live happily among the settled population, and I have some heart-warming examples of Travellers becoming settled residents, with the children now attending school regularly and the parents in formal work.
My constituents have had to put up with far more than their fair share of “misery”, as one constituent described it to me on Friday, as a result of current Gypsy and Traveller policy. One of my sites has had three major incidents of modern slavery, with 24 slaves saved by the police on the first occasion. Threats, violence, theft and other forms of intimidation have become everyday occurrences to some of my constituents, and Bedfordshire police, with an already overstretched budget, are not able to respond in as timely a manner as they would wish, leaving many of my constituents living in fear. A lady wrote to me in June to say that she will be moving away from the area as she no longer feels safe, having been assaulted by Travellers, Travellers having trespassed in her garden, having been followed by Travellers and her husband’s tools having been stolen from his car three times, causing a loss of income. That lady also has human rights that have not been respected. Of course, there are many decent, law-abiding Travellers, and all groups have good and bad in them, but I hear too many accounts like the one I just recounted.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that local authorities have appropriate training to enable them to deal with the cultural differences of the travelling community? If people are approached in the correct manner, a resolution often can and will be found.
Andrew Selous
As always, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We should always deal with such issues with humanity, decency and respect, but we also need to see equality under the law. As I am sure he would agree, the two are not mutually exclusive, but he makes a welcome point.
My main concern is with current planning policy, which allows many Traveller pitches in some areas when others have none at all. Multiple Traveller sites lead to many unauthorised encampments. In 2017, there were 116 unauthorised encampments in Central Bedfordshire, and clear-up costs in the area were around £350,000. Over £200,000 of that was spent by Highways England, with one encampment requiring over 100 grab lorries to clear up to 250 tonnes of litter. My constituents are understandably outraged to be told that there is no money for more of the public services that they want when they see huge sums being spent with no ability to recoup the money from those responsible.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
This debate is on an important subject that has come up every few months over my 21 years in this place. Apart from the extreme cases that my hon. Friend mentions, the real problem is that Travellers will break in and cause damage to gain access to illegal encampments. When they depart, they invariably leave behind a trail of devastation and rubbish, which costs the local taxpayer an enormous amount to clear up. Is not the change in the law that we need that, rather than having to point to a single person who caused the access damage, any group of Travellers illegally encamped should be collectively liable for fines and compensation, which could involve the confiscation of often quite valuable vehicles? They might then get the message that they cannot continue trampling over the rights of local people with impunity.
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend makes several good points, including on the Irish option, and I will touch on both that and the vehicles issue. I am grateful to him for telling it as it is in his constituency.
Is the current Government policy working well for the Travellers themselves? Thanks to the Prime Minister’s race disparity audit, we now know that pupils from a Gypsy, Roma, Traveller or Irish heritage background have the lowest attainment of all ethnic groups throughout their school years. Around a quarter of Gypsy and Roma pupils achieve a good level of development at the age of five, making them around three times less likely to do so than the average.
The disparity is worse at key stage 4. In 2015, the attainment 8 score for Gypsy and Roma pupils was 20 points, compared with the English average of 50 points, and 62 points for Chinese pupils. I asked the Children’s Commissioner for England to visit a school in my constituency with a lot of Traveller children, and she wrote to me that
“some had taken the children out of school for the summer travelling season”—
during term time—
“and most talked about the children leaving school when they are 14 to 16.”
She is right, as the race disparity audit shows that Gypsies and Irish Travellers are far less likely than any other ethnic group to stay in education after the age of 16. Only 58% of Irish Traveller pupils stayed on in 2014-15, compared with 90% of white British pupils and 97% of Chinese pupils.
Travellers and the families to which they illegally let their caravans on Traveller sites often have no proper sewerage, water or heating, and there is no proper mechanism in place to ensure decent standards of housing. This whole situation is a complete disgrace in the United Kingdom in 2018. Ministers and the officials responsible for this policy area should be hanging their heads in shame.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a good point, and he has partly illustrated that a public health issue is at stake. That public health issue is a major problem for young people growing up on illegal Traveller sites.
Andrew Selous
I am pleased my hon. Friend mentions that, because it is a good example of how we are failing Travellers with this ridiculous system. I have come across water tanks containing green slime, heating systems that do not work and hot water systems coming up through the toilet. It is just unbelievable. I have seen raw sewage going into ditches from caravans in which children are living. We are not a developing country; we are the fifth richest economy in the world. It is an absolute disgrace that we allow this to happen in our country, and we have allowed it to happen for so many years.
Why do we continue with a policy that is manifestly failing everyone affected by it? A Government who are truly compassionate and who have courage and clear-sightedness would act now to deal with these failing policies. I want tonight’s debate to result in a significant change of Government policy to improve outcomes for Travellers and the settled community. I held debates on Gypsies and Travellers on 4 February 2014 and 12 October 2016. If I speak with passion tonight, it is because I have had to come back to the Chamber to make these points for a third time—I know that you encourage tenaciousness in Members, Mr Speaker.
In 2014, the then Minister, the current Minister without Portfolio, told the House that he had set up a cross-Government ministerial-level working group to address these inequalities. He also said that he wanted to
“break down the barriers to social mobility through a planning system that is fair and equal to all.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 22WH.]
I am afraid that we have failed in those two objectives.
On 12 October 2016, the former Minister Gavin Barwell acknowledged that the interests of all members of the community had not been respected. He said that he would come back to the House having considered the Land Registry issue and that the Government were “constantly reviewing these issues.”
The time for endless constant reviews is over. Fair and decent-minded people who are fed up with living in fear and with seeing atrocious living conditions in their area that often become ungoverned spaces where modem slavery and other crime flourishes want action now, not constant reviews. The requests for action from Central Bedfordshire Council, which has to pick up the pieces of a failed national policy, and from Bedfordshire police, whose already over-worked officers have to spend far too much time on this issue, include the following.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. One problem in Cornwall is that every summer we have an influx of Travellers who camp illegally, usually on local authority car parks, taking up valuable space that could be used for tourists as well as creating the clean-up costs that he highlighted. Does he agree that one simple thing that could be done to help would be to simplify and streamline processes so that the police can take action on unauthorised sites much earlier and much quicker, which would save the taxpayer money?
Andrew Selous
The police do need more powers—Bedfordshire police have asked for them, and I will talk about that shortly. My hon. Friend makes a good point, but we can also do better with the overall policy, which would lead to better outcomes for Travellers and settled residents.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Rugby suffered particularly badly in the most recent travelling season. Despite extensive defensive measures, we have had 23 incursions on to council land, with people often cutting through locks. We have identified one particular issue: a lot of new houses are being built, and there are a number of recreation sites in the ownership of the developer rather than the local authority. Our local authority has become pretty good at defending its sites, but the developer—the private landowner—has not. This summer, there have been Travellers and caravans immediately adjacent to a play area in a new development, and children have not been able to use those facilities during the summer holidays. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a review of the powers available to private landowners?
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend illustrates well the issues in his area. In mine, the travelling season goes on for a few months yet, but those issues are common to my area and, I am sure, those of many other Members.
Central Bedfordshire Council and Bedfordshire police want one overall planning policy for everyone, with true equality for all under the law and everyone’s human rights being protected.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we are to move Travellers and Gypsies on from inappropriate sites successfully, they need to have appropriate sites to be moved on to and that local authorities need to be required to plan adequate and appropriate sites, otherwise they will not do it?
Andrew Selous
A Labour council, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, has done very well with a temporary stopping site, which I will mention shortly, but integration rather than separation and segregation is the way forward towards better outcomes for everyone, as I have said a number of times.
The policy of segregation and separation has demonstrably failed. We need to build the homes that everyone in this country needs for all those who are here legitimately. It is not right that the Government repeatedly ask areas that already have large numbers of Travellers to provide more and more sites. Given the failure of the current policy, areas such as mine that already have large numbers of Travellers should not be forced to take any more by the Government and a flawed Planning Inspectorate that completely ignores the fact that many of our Traveller sites are owned by wealthy individuals who live elsewhere in bricks-and-mortar houses and sub-let their caravans to non-Travellers in often atrocious conditions. The Planning Inspectorate has even ignored advertisements on Rightmove offering accommodation on Traveller sites to the general public, claiming that they were not relevant.
We also need trespass to be made part of the criminal law, as it is in Ireland. That change in law has led to a significant increase in Irish-heritage Travellers coming to the United Kingdom. Is Ireland a cruel and inhumane country? Of course not, nor would the United Kingdom be if we were to change the law in the same way. To use a recent campaign cry, people want to take back control of what is being allowed to happen in their communities through a separate planning system that completely fails to provide equality under the law and produces terrible outcomes for settled residents and Travellers.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, largely about local authority sites. In Buxton, in my constituency, Irish-heritage Travellers could not get on to the local car park and instead invaded the car park of a local business. They proceeded to spend several days there, threatening the staff and making a complete mess of the car park, making it almost impossible for the business to continue. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about aggravated trespass becoming a criminal offence, because it would enable courts to act much quicker than the minimum of two weeks that a civil case takes.
Andrew Selous
I particularly welcome the hon. Lady’s intervention because—I say this to my hon. Friend the Minister—there are many Members from all parties who realise that this is a serious problem and want a humane, decent and fair response to it.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
My hon. Friend is being extremely generous with his time. I fully support his comments about extending the trespass law in the UK as it has been in Ireland. It is currently possible for travelling families to come to an agreement with private landlords so that they can settle on their land. Does my hon. Friend agree that by building those relationships, which is what decent travelling families do, we should be able to single out those who break the law and infringe on the rights of private landlords?
Andrew Selous
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because as I said earlier and will say again—it needs to be said many times in this debate—there are many decent, law-abiding Travellers who want to do the right thing and pay their way, who clean up, and who are respectful of the local community and, indeed, contribute hugely to it. The sadness is that that is not the case with all Travellers. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point.
I will provide the Minister with a written list of requests from both Central Bedfordshire Council and Bedfordshire police, as I do not have time to go into them all tonight. I am strongly encouraging Central Bedfordshire Council to adopt the policy of Sandwell Council in having a temporary stopping site. The provision of that site has led to a significant decrease in unauthorised encampments and the associated clear-up costs and environmental degradation that sadly so often accompany them.
Central Bedfordshire Council wants the power to seize vehicles associated with unlawful or illegal activity, whoever the owner is. It wants the Environment Agency to prosecute or close non-compliant sites, where living conditions are often atrocious. It wants all land on Traveller sites to have an owner who is properly registered with the Land Registry, without which proper enforcement cannot take place.
Bedfordshire police say that the current legislation on aggravated trespass is inadequate, as the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) said, because there are difficulties in proving the offence. They would also like section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to be extended to include highway land and significant impact on local communities, as that would replicate the legislation in Northern Ireland.
In the past 12 months, Central Bedfordshire Council has issued 335 parking enforcement notices to foreign vehicles. So far, 250 of those have been cancelled because the owners could not be traced. It is a criminal offence for the owners of foreign vehicles not to register their vehicles if they have been in the UK for more than six months, but the police have no record of foreign vehicles that have been in the UK for more than six months, and I do not believe that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has either. The result is that those with foreign number plates—including quite a large number of Irish-registered vehicles in my area—can park with impunity, while drivers with British-registered vehicles have to pay penalty charge notices. Again, this just leads to fair-minded people coming to the conclusion that there is no equality under the law.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
My hon. Friend’s point about equality under the law is particularly important. The residents of Far Cotton in Northampton have had encampments this year in particular. They have seen people driving and behaving in their cars in ways that, should the local residents attempt to drive like that, they would be visited by the police straightaway. I welcome my hon. Friend’s emphasis on equality and ask him to reflect on the fact that local residents often feel that they are not treated equally when it comes to the behaviour of those on illegal encampments, compared with their behaviour as local residents.
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I am afraid I have horror stories from some of my constituents who are regularly driven at by people coming out of some of the Traveller sites. Bedfordshire police do their very best to help with a limited and severely stretched budget, but they cannot always get there to assist people in some of these rural communities.
As it is for many Members, this is a significant issue for my constituency, and it is one that I am keen to get right. I am angry that so little has been done by the Government. My challenge to the Minister tonight is that he does a serious job of addressing the issue that I and all other Members have raised here at pace and with urgency, or, if the Government are happy with the way things are, he should come to explain why he thinks the current law is adequate to my constituents and to other Members who share the concerns that I have raised. We really can and must do better. My commitment to my constituents is to keep on campaigning for the improvements that we need for everyone until they are delivered.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on his speech. He was a magnificent Prisons Minister, but I have now seen a new side to him. He did not mess about with weasel words; he told it like it is, and I agreed with everything he said. I support the Irish option, which I dare say my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) may have something to say about if he catches your eye, Mr Speaker.
I want to say this to my hon. Friend: I have been in the House a little while, and this is not the first time that we have had a debate on this issue. Week in, week out, month in, month out, year in, year out, someone raises this matter on the Adjournment. Colleagues are told to come in to make interventions. The Whips are there taking notes and the Minister is looking very concerned. All colleagues hear these stories of people breaking into parks and breaking into play areas. My goodness, Mr Speaker, this year, a crowd of these people, who are not genuine poor Travellers, turned up and pitched their caravans in a big circle in our beautiful Priory park. They took out their deckchairs and then were absolutely threatening to the local population who happened to be playing organised games with the children. They turned up on Southend seafront and took out their deckchairs. This is going on morning, noon and night. Colleagues stand up and tell the House and the Minister how dreadful it is. Everyone looks concerned and absolutely nothing happens; nothing at all changes.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire has had, I think, two Adjournment debates on the matter. I had an Adjournment debate earlier this year. We had a meeting with the Secretary of State. The officials were there. Everyone was very, very anxious, but nothing ever changes.
The hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) rightly pointed out alternative arrangements. I agree with him completely, but what I am talking about is the situation where local Members of Parliament, of all parties, are blamed for this issue. It is said that we are doing absolutely nothing about it and that no action is being taken.
This cannot go on. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is expecting any different result from this Adjournment debate tonight, but I absolutely share his anger and I join him in the challenge. I really congratulate him on raising this issue, but if he finds that, once again, nothing at all positive happens, I will be standing shoulder to shoulder with him until this situation is at long last addressed.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this important Adjournment debate and, if I may say so, on introducing it so very ably. I also welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) who, in his characteristic style, put the point bluntly and clearly to the Minister that something really needs to be done.
I am here tonight because of the increasing number of representations that I have received from my constituents who want us to change the law. They believe in the democratic process. They have lobbied us by letter and by email. They have come to our surgeries and said, “You are elected as legislators. You people make laws. We want a change in the law and we are asking you democratically and peacefully to do something about it, but do not underestimate our level of frustration about the fact that nothing ever seems to get done about it.” This is a major issue, particularly in my county of Essex. I note that there are five Essex Members of Parliament in the Chamber this evening: my hon. Friends the Members for Southend West, for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), and me. Our excellent police, fire and crime commissioner, Mr Roger Hirst, also feels strongly about this issue and very much supports the change in the law that we are arguing for.
Mr Francois
There are, in fact, roughly 20 Members of Parliament in the Chamber tonight, which—as the Minister and the Whips will appreciate—is a pretty good turnout for a one-line Whip Monday. I think that we are all here for one common reason, which is that we have had enough. This has been going on for years. I am not trying to emulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, as this is my own particular contribution, but we have had enough.
Every spring and summer the cat and mouse game begins again. The illegal incursions begin, the council’s legal staff are put on alert and the police begin to patrol. But, of course, the Travellers know the law backwards; they know every loophole. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire said, we must acknowledge that some behave perfectly legally, but many unfortunately do not. The incursions begin on farmers’ fields, school playing fields, sports centres and increasingly—as the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) intimated—industrial units and business parks, all of which is illegal and none of which has permission. As well as the antisocial behaviour that often occurs, by the time the Travellers have moved on there are often considerable clean-up costs. For example, one incursion that lasted nearly a week in the Basildon Borough Council area a couple of years ago led to clean-up costs of approximately £10,000, which had to be borne by the council taxpayers of that authority, whose fault it absolutely was not.
Seeking redress through the courts can often take quite a long while. This often leads by constituents to believe that Travellers somehow see themselves above the law. It is a great part of my constituents’ frustration that there seems to be one law for the settled community and another law for the travelling community. In essence, this evening we are arguing for equality before the law—a fundamental principle of British justice going all the way back to Magna Carta. The police have a section 61 power to compel Travellers to move on from an illegal encampment, but there is no geographical definition of how far that movement has to be. They can literally move a few hundred yards down the road, re-encamp there, then the whole rigmarole starts all over again. That is how weak the power currently available to the police is. We need something far firmer to act as a real deterrent.
In fairness, the Government have realised the increasing frustration about this issue—not least given the three Adjournment debates on the subject secured by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire in the past few years—and launched a consultation some months ago on whether to change the law in relation to Travellers, and that consultation closed a few weeks ago. The Minister will be well aware that 59 of my Conservative colleagues, including several former Cabinet Ministers, wrote to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to ask him to adopt the Irish option. I make this plea tonight as a former Department for Communities and Local Government Minister myself. I saw discussions about this issue when I served in the Department, but I did not see what I would call any genuine determination to grip it and come up with a solution. It was left to us to propose one, which was, in fairness, one of the options included in the Government’s consultation.
What we are asking for, essentially, is what is known as the Irish option, based on the fact that in 2002 Ireland changed the law to make acts of deliberate trespass a criminal offence. Part of the knock-on effect of that is that we have had more Travellers coming from Ireland to England during the travelling season because the law is tougher in Ireland than it is here at present, so we are regarded as something of a soft touch. We should make deliberate acts of trespass a criminal offence. We are not talking about a couple of schoolboys cutting across the corner of a farmer’s field on the way home from school. Clearly, the police would have discretion, as with any other law, in how they applied this. We are talking about a deliberate act of trespass on land that Travellers do not own and do not have permission to be on. That would be regarded as a criminal offence and the police would therefore have a power to compel them to move on immediately. If they did not do so, they could be arrested, and their vehicles could be impounded—which, believe you me, would be a very powerful deterrent to the travelling community. That would go a long way towards addressing this problem, because it would give the police and local authorities, with whom they work closely, a real deterrent power to stop this menace occurring in our constituencies year after year.
Some people would say, “Well, this is too harsh”—that it in some way abrogates the Travellers’ human rights. I can understand that argument but I do not agree with it. What about the human rights of the settled community and the human rights of the council tax payers in our constituencies? Moreover, Ireland, when I last looked, was subject to the European convention on human rights, and it passed this law in 2002. If Ireland was able to do it under the ECHR, I see absolutely no reason why we cannot similarly do it under the ECHR in the United Kingdom.
This has been going on for years and years. Now, finally, the Government have acknowledged that there is a problem. Churchill once famously said that the first stage in dealing with any problem, no matter what its magnitude, is to admit that the problem exists. To be fair to the Government, they have admitted that there is a problem. The Minister knows how this place works and is a popular Member of this House—that is as much buttering up as I am going to do—but I would humbly advise him, having marched us all up to the top of the hill, not to march us all down again. There will be real anger in this place if, as a result of this consultation, the Government make some very minor tweak in the law as window-dressing but do not meaningfully address this problem such that we will see a real decrease in these incidents in the next two years. The Minister has a chance to do something that would be incredibly popular in the country and will also, in effect, fulfil a 2010 manifesto commitment. I really believe that now is the time to make everybody equal before the law, to stop this menace, and to defend the communities whom we are elected to represent.
Mr Speaker
Does the hon. Lady have the agreement of the Minister and of the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous)?
Ruth George
I was going to ask for that, rather than interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s speech.
Ruth George
I want to echo many of the sentiments that have been expressed tonight, but from the point of view of my constituents and of a local business in Buxton that suffered the incursion of a group of Travellers this summer, as I mentioned earlier. That was the first time that this has happened in our area, and I extend my sympathies to all those who have been suffering this for many years. The worry among residents of Buxton and High Peak is that this could be the first of many such visits, and that once people know where they can come and where there are rural areas with sparse policing, there will not be the resources to effectively monitor and move them on.
As it was, Derbyshire constabulary rose to the occasion and was very good at coming to monitor what was happening as much as it could. However, the problem was that one of our local businesses on an industrial estate had its car park taken over by a group of Irish heritage Travellers who proceeded to issue threats to the staff there. The staff were working across two sites, and when they had to travel between the buildings to go about their work, they were threatened and harassed. They were looked at through the windows, and small children were trying the windows and doors of the building to see where they could break in.
The owner of the business was threatened and told that if he paid money, the Travellers would be able to get the ferry back to Ireland, but until that happened, they were not going anywhere and there was nothing he could do about it. That business had the same frustrations that have been mentioned by many Members, but as a private company, it is not their business to try to evict Travellers. There is no experience in the community, as there is in other areas where this has been an issue for many years. It was therefore extremely difficult for the business to deal with that.
The staff were left perturbed, and many of them had to go home out of fear because they were being threatened with such horrific physical violence. Besides the mess that was made of the car park, there were no toileting facilities, so you can imagine the clean-up that they had to do afterwards. When lorries arrived to deliver to the premises, they were swarmed, and the drivers were asked the value of the goods inside their lorries. There were attempts to prevent the lorries from making the deliveries and prevent the business from being able to carry on.
The concern is that, where local authority sites have been used in the past, the travelling community may move on to business premises if people see that as an easier target. It is very important that action is taken, so that people in my constituency and everywhere across the country know that the police have powers to stop this on their behalf, and that they will not have to go through the civil courts, which takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money for businesses. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give all Members on both sides of the House those assurances today.
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this important debate and thanking all those who contributed? I recognise that feelings are strong across the House, and the turnout this evening, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) pointed out, is an indication of that strength of feeling.
I stress again that the Government take the issue of living conditions and illegal activity on Traveller sites and unauthorised encampments extremely seriously. As a Member who represents a rural constituency that gets its fair share of some of the visitors who cause disruption and difficulty, I ought to add that this subject is of particular interest to me. I have listened carefully to all the accounts of the conditions on some sites, the challenges faced by those living on these sites and the difficulties that communities face as a result of unauthorised encampments, as well as all the constructive recommendations for how we could improve the way in which we deal with the present situation.
I am confident that I speak for everyone in this House when I say that we recognise that the majority of the travelling community are decent, law-abiding people. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, I have a number of settled small-scale travelling communities in my constituency who integrate well and are part of the community. However, we are extremely concerned about the issues raised during the debate regarding the conditions and activities carried out on certain sites, as well as the impact that unauthorised encampments can have on settled communities, especially when they give rise to criminality.
We promote a tolerant society in which people, whatever their background, can live, work, learn and socialise together, based on shared rights, responsibilities and opportunities, but we will not and should not sit by when people are breaking the law. The Government remain committed to ensuring that all communities, regardless of their ethnicity, are treated fairly, with equality under the law a fundamental tenet of our society, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford pointed out. Our aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for Travellers in a way that facilitates their traditional and nomadic way of life while respecting the interests and rights of the settled community.
I will take in order some of the broad themes raised by hon. Members. First, on unauthorised encampments, in the spring we launched a consultation on the effectiveness of powers for dealing with unauthorised development and encampments, alongside colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. The document sought views on a range of issues—from the powers available to local authorities and the police, to the provision of authorised stopping places and the impact that a change in existing powers could have on travelling communities.
The consultation, which closed on 15 June, allowed the Government to hear views from everyone with an interest—settled and nomadic communities, organisations and individuals, and public authorities—on how best to address unauthorised encampments. We have received a substantial response, with over 2,000 representations, which signals how strongly people feel about this issue. We are grateful for the time that people have taken to engage with us, and we remain committed to working with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to consider all representations before deciding on the way forward.
Several Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, raised the Irish model. It may be of interest to Members that my right hon. Friend the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary recently met the Irish Government to discuss their approach to trespass and unauthorised encampments. We will provide a formal response to the consultation in due course.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
Was there a case against the Irish option?
Kit Malthouse
I have to confess that I was not privy to the meeting, but I understand that the pros and cons of the Irish model were discussed in some detail, and I think there are some cons as well as pros.
The second broad issue that was raised, quite rightly, by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire was the living conditions on sites. He made an important point about the conditions on existing authorised sites, some of which, I hear, are unsuitable for habitation. I agree that they are, frankly, disgraceful. I would remind the House that, under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, private caravan sites in England, which may include owner-occupied and rented Traveller sites, must have planning permission and a site licence issued by the local authority. It is an offence to run a site without a licence. Housing that is not fit for habitation is not acceptable under any circumstances.
Andrew Selous
The difficulty is that planning permission tends not to align with the red line of legal land ownership on a map. The difficulty for really good local authority officers, who want to have good enforcement, is that the law is not fit for purpose, however well-intentioned it may have been. I have really good officers who try endlessly to get this right, and it is really hard under current law.
Kit Malthouse
I do recognise the problem that my hon. Friend raises, and I would be more than happy to sit down with him and discuss what specific changes he thinks are required to planning legislation to deal with some of these anomalies. Anything we can do to facilitate correct planning enforcement, particularly on some of these condition issues, would obviously be welcome. I am happy to give him that undertaking.
Site licence conditions can govern matters such as the permitted number of caravans on the site, the provision of roads, utilities, sewerage and fire equipment, and spacing distances between homes. Local authorities can serve compliance notices on the park owner if they fail to meet the conditions stipulated in the site licence, and can prosecute them if they fail to comply. If the site owner is convicted—if local authorities can identify the site owner—they may face an unlimited fine. Of course, when the health and safety of residents is at risk, a local authority can enter a site and do the necessary works without taking the owner to court. The authority will in any of these cases often seek to recover all its enforcement costs, including for court cases, and charge interest on the expenses claimed from the site’s owner.
Sandy Martin
If it is that much more attractive to have Travellers on properly regulated and enforced sites—I think we can all agree that it is—is it not necessary to make sure that there are enough of these sites? At the moment there are very many unregulated and unenforceable sites, and as long as there are not enough planned sites, Gypsies and Travellers will continue to use unplanned and illegal sites.
Kit Malthouse
I will move on to planning issues in a moment, so I will address the hon. Gentleman’s question then, if I may.
The third area that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire raised was educational outcomes. He made a very important point. It is shocking when we consider the educational outcomes of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children. I am concerned by the findings of the Children’s Commissioner for England that he mentioned. Every child has the right to access all the opportunities that modern-day Britain has to offer, including an adequate education. We expect schools to have data and evidence-led approaches to support all their pupils, whatever their background. Parents are responsible for ensuring that children of compulsory school age receive a suitable full-time education. One way they can do that is through home education, rather than regular school attendance, and the Government support the right of parents to home education. However, if it appears that a child is not receiving a suitable education at home, local authorities can enforce school attendance through school attendance orders.
However, as my hon. Friend mentioned, there is more to do. That was why in January this year the Department for Education established the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller stakeholder group to inform policy development. In March we launched a review of exclusions, exploring why certain pupil groups, including Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils, are over-represented in exclusion statistics. In January my Department launched a 2018-19 pilot programme to improve the integration of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, including by raising educational outcomes. As part of the Department for Education’s careers strategy, all those groups and their young people were listed as one of three target groups in a £1.7 million call for projects testing ways of providing vulnerable groups with guidance on routes into careers.
Andrew Selous
I am delighted to hear that the Minister is engaging with the Gypsy and Traveller community, but does he not accept that there might be adults in the community who quite like the current system because it gives them quite a lot of freedom, and that it is actually the children who are missing out? Children might not stick their hands up and say that they want to be in school full time, but we in this place have a duty to do what is right for all children so that they can fulfil their God-given aspirations and talents and become the scientists and engineers we need for the future.
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree with my hon. Friend but, as he knows, the subject of home schooling and the rights of parents over the rights of the state is a matter of debate at the moment, and something that I know the House will want to opine on in future. That is pertinent to this area in particular. I have inquired of Gypsy communities in my constituency whether their children are at school, and they are being home educated, which at the moment is perfectly legal. The question is whether that education is of an acceptable standard, and therefore whether a local authority feels able to enforce.
The fourth area that my hon. Friend raised was planning policy. He described the imbalance between the number of sites in some areas compared with others, particularly in his county. The Government’s planning policy for Traveller sites confirms that our aims include that local planning authorities should make their own assessment of need for the purposes of planning and, working together with neighbouring authorities, identify land for sites. Local planning authorities should consider the production of joint development plans that set targets on a cross-authority basis to provide more flexibility in identifying sites. The policy is clear that local planning authorities should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate, the nearest settled community. In exceptional cases when a local planning authority is burdened by a large-scale unauthorised site that has significantly increased its need, and where the area is subject to strict and special planning constraints, there is no assumption that the authority has to plan to meet its Traveller site needs in full. With regard to helping to improve outcomes for Travellers, local planning authorities should also ensure that Traveller sites are economically, socially and environmentally sustainable.
Andrew Selous
I will try to make this my last intervention. Is it not possible for a local authority to plan for enough houses for everyone in an area so that there is one general housing needs assessment that provides enough accommodation for everyone? Some 76% of Travellers live in houses built from bricks and mortar anyway. There is nothing in their culture that prevents that from happening while respecting absolutely their history and culture, which we all want to celebrate. Does the Minister not think that there is something odd, outdated and failing about this continuing policy of separation and segregation, which has such terrible outcomes for everyone?
Kit Malthouse
I acknowledge the issue my hon. Friend raises with regard to segregation, but notwithstanding the percentage he mentions, a significant percentage of the travelling community still wishes to live a nomadic lifestyle. The question is how we best facilitate that, so that the impact of that lifestyle on existing communities is minimised, while at the same time allowing those who do wish to travel from place to place to live as peacefully and harmoniously as possible, with their children in particular getting the outcomes he desires.
The final area, which was raised by a number of Members, is that of enforcement. Several hon. Members spoke about the difficulties of enforcing the law and gave examples of cases in which the police are unable to act. The consultation underlined that illegal behaviours, such as industrial fly-tipping, can be difficult to address. We have seen that a multi-agency approach is vital in dealing with these incidents successfully. Local authorities, the police and other agencies should work together to find appropriate solutions. In some areas, such as Sandwell, we have seen that that can work. The majority of Gypsies and Travellers are entirely law-abiding, but we take very seriously the significant incidents that we have heard of involving a minority of individuals. We should not allow them to tarnish the reputation of Gypsy, Traveller and travelling show people and communities.
We want to prevent local residents from suffering when a problematic unauthorised encampment occurs and to improve the outcomes of the most vulnerable in British society. We are funding a programme to improve outcomes for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community groups in educational attainment, health and integration, and we are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education to maximise the impact of our projects. I acknowledge—I think both sides of the House agree—that more needs to be done to ensure harmonious relations between our communities. We recognise that the problem is by no means simple. We are giving these issues our urgent attention and we will publish a response to the consultation in due course.
My hon. Friend has expressed his frustration with Government action thus far and calls for significant change. I have no specifics for him tonight, but I fervently hope that, through my actions and the actions of the Department over the months to come, we can obviate the need for a fourth such debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Business Contract Terms (Assignment of Receivables) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Business Contract Terms (Assignment of Receivables) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. This is the first time I have served on a Committee as a Minister, and I am extremely pleased to bring forward these positive draft regulations. I am also pleased that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sefton Central, is on the Committee, because he is a Medway person, too—we grew up in the same area. It is great that there are two people on the Committee who know Medway well.
Britain’s 5.7 million small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of the economy, accounting for more than half of turnover and 60% of employment in the private sector. Finance is the lifeblood of those businesses, yet many of them are denied by their customers the ability to access one particular finance option. That is the anomaly that the draft regulations will put right. In future, SMEs will, if they choose, be able to raise finance on their invoices more easily.
The most recent figures for asset-based finance show that total advances stand at £22 billion, of which more than £20 billion is invoice finance. Around half that is to large businesses, so invoice finance advances to SMEs amount to approximately £10 billion. In comparison, bank loans and overdrafts to SMEs were £165 billion at the end of 2017.
Invoice finance has real advantages—it is flexible, immediate and supports businesses to grow—so why is take-up so low? The answer is that many customers prohibit their suppliers from assigning invoices—or, more accurately, receivables: the right to receive the proceeds from an invoice. That assignment is essential for invoice finance to operate. Such restrictive terms are found in many purchase contracts. An SME supplier is typically unable to negotiate changes. If it wants a contract, it had better just accept the standard terms, otherwise the work will be offered to a competitor.
Why do those contract terms persist? Some such clauses are written as a general catch-all to prevent suppliers from subcontracting services. However, those standard terms are so wide that suppliers are equally prevented from assigning their invoices to finance providers. In other cases, customers may not want to deal with an invoice finance company. They know that the imbalance of power means their small suppliers are unlikely to act against them if they impose long payment terms or simply pay late. A finance company is a different proposition. Whether such onerous terms exist through inertia or deliberate intent, their effect is the same: they prevent suppliers from accessing the finance they need to thrive and grow.
The draft regulations will put an end to that situation for SME suppliers making routine supplies of goods and services. They will allow providers to offer invoice finance even where restrictive contract terms are in place, knowing that those terms will have no effect. The draft regulations do not require any contract to be redrafted, nor are they in any way retrospective. Existing agreements will continue to be enforceable, and the same standard drafting, including clauses prohibiting assignment, may still be used for contracts entered into on or after 31 December this year. Those clauses will simply have no effect. Therefore, the impact of the draft regulations will be felt gradually, as new supplier relationships are created. This is a simple mechanism with no compliance or reporting burden.
To offer invoice finance, providers will simply need to assure themselves that the supply contract was entered into on or after 31 December this year and that none of the exemptions apply—for example, that the supplier is not a large enterprise. The change will also unlock additional finance for existing clients where advances are currently restricted due to prohibitions on assignment imposed by some of the SME’s customers. The position for both supplier and finance provider will be simpler and more certain, which will help to create the significant benefits that are expected to flow from the regulations.
Two direct benefits are described in the impact assessment, which reflect the two elements of a typical invoice finance arrangement. The first benefit is a reduction in the discount fees charged to suppliers, which reflects the reduced risk that the finance provider will be unable to collect payment because the assignment was not valid. The annual savings to business from lower discount fees are assessed at £13.7 million. The second benefit is a reduction in the service charge based on turnover. That benefit is assessed at £46.1 million. Both benefits result from the reduced costs incurred by finance providers being passed on to SMEs in a competitive market.
Finally, there will be significant indirect benefits from additional finance becoming available and allowing suppliers to take advantage of new business opportunities. Those benefits are assessed at £84.6 million. All those benefits are calculated from survey evidence and follow-up research, as set out in the impact assessment. The overall outcome is a net present benefit to business of £966 million, which I am sure all hon. Members will welcome.
As with any intervention, it is important to ensure that the benefits do not give rise to unintended consequences. Acting to make contract terms ineffective is a powerful measure, which is typically used where there is an imbalance of power between the parties that cannot be corrected in any other way. After the consultation, and even after an earlier version of the regulations was laid, the legal profession raised concerns about the potential impact of the regulations on the use of English law. As hon. Members will know, English law is one of this country’s most valuable exports and forms the basis for contracts in areas as diverse as aircraft leasing, project finance and infrastructure.
We listened carefully to those concerns and my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), withdrew the instrument so that they could be properly considered. Following extensive discussions, I am glad to say that these regulations incorporate changes that meet those concerns. I thank all those involved from the City of London Law Society and the trade body UK Finance who have ensured that the original aim was met without putting at risk the position of English law as the leading choice of governing law for international agreements.
The regulations will set suppliers free to access invoice finance when they wish, without being prevented from doing so by their customers. They will do this while preserving the attractiveness of English law overseas and they will bring significant benefits, with a net present value to business of £966 million.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Sharma. Having heard the introduction to the debate, I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of an SME LLP firm, but it has had no involvement with invoice finance in relation to its own contracts during the whole of its existence.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Sharma. I am also a partner in an LLP, but we are not involved in the discussions that the Committee is considering. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. We are reminded that this place is chock full of lawyers—what would we do without them? Answers on the back of a postcard, please. I welcome the Minister to her first Front-Bench duty. As she said, we share a common heritage on the banks of the Medway—she is my dad’s MP, in fact. It having been a secret ballot, I cannot possibly divulge whether he voted for her. She and I were also Medway councillors before coming here.
Invoice financing can be described as the process of borrowing money to improve cash flow. The regulations suggest a potential demand 10 times that which is currently met through the use of invoice financing by smaller businesses. However, the Minister used the phrase “unintended consequences” in her remarks, and I caution that we need to beware of the potential downside of overuse of invoice financing—at the moment, an estimated 40,000 businesses use it. I say that because customers who see their suppliers relying or over-relying on invoice financing could and sometimes do question their stability. There is a balance to be struck in deciding whether to use something such as factoring, or the assignment of receivables, which is the correct legal term.
There is also a cost to using invoice financing, which is estimated at between 0.5% and 5% of the value of the invoice. As the Minister rightly said, one clear benefit of these regulations is the likely reduction in those costs, because of the reduction in risk and in the time taken up in applying invoice financing. Nevertheless, there is a cost, and it applies only because firms are having to use invoice financing in the first place, because there are alternatives. I shall spend a little time talking about some of them.
As the explanatory memorandum on the regulations tells us, invoice financing is related to cash flow. Note 7.1 describes the importance for businesses of “having adequate cash flow”, but in the same sentence that is set against the requirement to
“access…external sources of finance in order to invest and grow.”
It is very important to recognise the difference between funding and finance for cash flow on the one hand and longer-term finance for investment and growth on the other. They are very different, and the sources of finance should be very different—they cost very different amounts. Invoice financing is not the answer to long-term finance for investment or growth. The phrasing of the explanatory note is a little misleading, as it could suggest that invoice financing plays a part in long-term investment for growth.
Invoice financing is used for cash flow, but in many cases the question is why, because if customers pay promptly, there is no need to use it. We have faced the scourge of late payment in this country for far too long. In my three years on the Front Bench, I have spent a lot of my time discussing it. We have tried at length to address the topic in a couple of the Bill Committees on which I have served. It is the role of the small business commissioner to look at the problem, but his powers are very limited—they are limited to signposting and he has no powers to intervene. I have argued in Committee that he should be given such powers and I will return to that point later. The regulations have the potential to be a distraction from the problem of the lack of prompt payment.
We have a prompt payment code to which many large firms are signatories, but the reality is payment in 60 days—there is a 30-day payment term for Government contracts. The problem is how the code is enforced through the supply chain. As we saw with Carillion, far too often small firms were being paid late and the payment terms were not being enforced. Carillion, which was a signatory to the prompt payment code at the time, extended its payment terms to 120 days from the 60 days of the code. There is a requirement to publish performance against the prompt payment code, but the code is voluntary and therefore there is no assurance of compliance and, in any case, the 60-day requirement is that 95%, not 100%, of invoices are paid within that time.
The Federation of Small Businesses wants better access to invoice financing, and I agree with it, but it is also concerned about late payment. It estimates that large firms owe £6,142 to their small suppliers. It has campaigned on that for 10 years, but the concern remains that large firms use their smallest suppliers to help their cash flow by delaying payments. Some 40,000 firms use invoice discounting, but 50,000 go bust every year as a result of late payment. Thirty-seven per cent. of Federation of Small Businesses members are experiencing cash-flow difficulties, 30% use overdrafts to manage their cash flow and 20% are experiencing a slowdown in profit growth. Welcome though the proposals are, the figures the Minister cited from the explanatory notes estimate the financial benefits of the measure to be in the tens of millions of pounds, rising to the hundreds of millions which, in terms of the economy, are very small benefits.
Invoice financing has its place. Making it harder for large customers to prevent its use is helpful, but that is not the whole answer to the challenges of SME finance. I am struck by the fact that, according to the Federation of Small Businesses, only 9% of businesses approached their bank for finance in 2016. That is a tiny figure. There is a real problem in accessing finance. Today’s measures will address a small part of that problem but there is the bigger challenge of improving both access to finance for long-term investment and growth and the terms and reality of the payment of invoices.
We need a system with teeth. I have on many occasions recommended the Australian system of buying in arbitration, with fines for persistent late payment—a recommendation that found its way into Labour’s manifesto last year. Highways England uses project bank accounts, and I encourage the Minister early in her term of office to use her influence to have them considered much more widely for large Government contracts. They protect against insolvency and improve the reliability and promptness of payment.
I support the proposed change and the Opposition will not oppose the regulations, which lower costs and risks, but I repeat the call I have so often made that we need to improve payment practice. The Government must lead by example through Government contracts and by enforcing terms through the supply chain and helping with access to finance. That is how we will deliver the support that our SMEs need.
Kelly Tolhurst
I am grateful for the Committee’s consideration of the regulations, and to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to this important debate. I will touch on a number of the elements he rightly brought up.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that there are two types of benefit to invoice financing: a factoring element and a discounting element. He is also right that it is one tool within the overall finance packages from which businesses are able to draw. The measures before us will aid the growth of invoice financing so that where suppliers want to enter into a contract agreement with invoice financing, nullifying the term allows them to do so. However, invoice financing on its own does not solve the problems with accessing finance. It is one tool—the regulations try to widen the scope for businesses to access it, but there are two different elements.
It is true that many small businesses have applied for finance with banks, but many have not. They decided that they would rather stunt their growth than borrow because of the fears around long-term borrowing. We know, however, that they will often be willing to improve their cash flow, which enables them to grow and invest. Without the ability to access invoice financing, many small businesses would not be able to take up the contracts that they want to, which enable them to grow.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that there is a shortfall in lending to SMEs of £35 billion relative to the pre-crisis period. She referred to just under £1 billion that would be made available through this policy, which is welcome, but is a drop in the ocean compared to the bigger challenges facing SMEs. SMEs have created 2 million jobs since 2010 and power our economy. With the uncertainty of Brexit, life will get worse for SMEs. Will she say something about the broader picture of what the Government will do to address the pre-crisis gap of £35 billion? That is the bigger question that the Government need to address. Lots of work had been done to address the lending issues facing small businesses, but as she knows from her impact assessment, it has not happened to the extent that it needs to.
Kelly Tolhurst
The Government are looking at many different ways to increase small businesses’ access to finance. Having run a small business, I know how crucial that is. While this statutory instrument represents just under £1 billion of net present benefits, it is a gain. Because we are making this decision, this element of finance will be available to more SMEs, which can only help. It will also aid the ability of new invoice financers to come into the marketplace, which we welcome, because that brings more jobs and more receipts into the Exchequer.
I have covered the cash-flow issue. Many businesses will not now take an overdraft. Instead they can take out finance invoice and manage their business needs as a small business. It is difficult for small business owners to get access even to what we might regard as small sums, so many suppliers will use this as an ongoing tool. Factoring may suggest that a company has been in financial difficulties. That factoring can now take place on a private and confidential basis, so that customers are not aware of that financing on their faced invoices.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central mentioned the small business commissioner, whom I was pleased to meet for the first time last week. He is doing wonderful work with small businesses in the battle against late payments to ensure that they can receive some of the moneys they are owed. The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the prompt payment code, particularly in relation to Carillion. However, he will know that we are looking to consult widely on late payments. Since I have been in my post I have been particularly concerned about that, so I have been looking at it personally. I look forward to launching that, so that we can assess it and, as a Government, take forward more measures to help small businesses.
We all agree that businesses should be able to access the finance they need, choosing whatever options are most suitable for them. The Government are committed to ensuring that businesses can secure the finance they need to invest and grow. It is not about favouring one type of finance over another. Invoice finance will not be the right choice for every business, but that should be a decision made by individual entrepreneurs, not made for them through onerous terms imposed by their customers. The regulations ensure that restrictive terms will no longer apply to SMEs while protecting freedom of contract for large enterprises. That change will allow thousands of small businesses to access invoice finance for the first time and will reduce the cost for existing and new clients alike. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA) AND INVESTMENT PROTECTION AGREEMENT (IPA)
(6 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, I will briefly outline the procedure for European Committees. First, a member of the European Scrutiny Committee—in this case, Mr Tomlinson—will make a statement of no more than five minutes on the Committee’s decision to refer the documents for debate. The Minister will then make a statement for up to 10 minutes. Members of the Committee may not make interventions during either statement. Questions to the Minister will follow. The Minister’s statement and subsequent questions may take up to one hour. The Minister will then move the motion on the Order Paper and the debate will take place. We must conclude our proceedings by 7 pm. I call Mr Tomlinson.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry.
The EU’s proposed free trade agreement and investment protection agreement with Singapore are expected to be signed on 18 or 19 October. We thank the Government for tabling this debate, particularly given the timing and the timetable, because it is imperative that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise and have its say on the Government’s position on the new EU trade and investment agreements, which obviously continue to generate interest inside and outside this House.
Let me first point out the broader Brexit implications of the proposed FTA considered by the European Scrutiny Committee. First, the Government reiterate their commitment to securing the continuity of the EU FTAs after we leave the EU. Under the draft withdrawal agreement, the EU intends to notify third parties that the UK is to be treated as a member state for the purposes of international agreements for the duration of the implementation period. However, the question that remains unanswered is whether the Government consider this notification or request to third countries wholly sufficient to secure the benefit of these EU bilateral agreements for UK businesses and consumers. We note Singapore’s agreement in principle to the continuity of trade relations during any implementation period. How and when will that be translated into a legally binding commitment?
Turning to the expected benefits of the FTA, the Government have assessed that the FTA will increase GDP by £95 million each year. Bilateral exports are expected to increase by nearly £300 million, and imports by just over £600 million, in the long run. Can the Minister explain how the expected £300 million trade deficit with Singapore will generate the £95 million per annum benefit? In particular, which UK firms or sectors are likely to be most affected?
The Minister states that the Government are working towards new bilateral agreements with Singapore after the end of the implementation period. Are the Government seeking a copy and paste job of the EU negotiated deal, or a more ambitious deal? When will the Government consult UK stakeholders on a new agreement and publish an accompanying revised impact assessment? Furthermore, and importantly, how might the Chequers plan have an impact on the UK’s ability to strike a more ambitious trade deal with Singapore after Brexit? Clarification on cross-border trading relationships with Singapore and other countries in a no-deal scenario—in which there is no withdrawal agreement and no implementation period—is also required. For example, what costs will UK businesses and consumers face if the UK reverts to World Trade Organisation most favoured nation trading terms with Singapore?
Turning to the proposed investment protection agreement, one of the most controversial issues in recent EU trade agreement negotiations, including those with Singapore, has been proposals involving investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms and the new version, investment court systems, which allow investors to sue Governments in independent arbitration tribunals. The Minister considers that ratification of the proposed investment agreement is unlikely to happen until after the end of any implementation period, so that will not apply to the UK. However, the Government remain silent on what sort of investment protection and dispute resolution mechanisms they would include in future agreements. With just six months until the UK’s exit from the EU, when do they expect to determine their position on this fundamental aspect of post-exit relations with third countries? For the reasons set out in the Committee’s report—we note the Minister’s response of 19 July—the issues require urgent clarification.
The Committee has also highlighted the need for transparency in, and effective scrutiny of, trade deals—both EU-negotiated deals and deals negotiated in the future. Will there be more or fewer opportunities than at present for parliamentary scrutiny and public accountability with respect to trade deals after Brexit, and if so why? For example, further to the Secretary of State’s oral statement to Parliament on 16 July, how does the proposed outline approach to new trade agreement negotiations before formal negotiations begin compare with the Commission’s negotiating directives, and to what extent will Parliament be involved in setting or amending such approaches?
Those are the main issues raised by the Select Committee. I look forward to the debate. It is good to see the Minister in his place, and I look forward to his responses.
The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bellingham. I am delighted to be here today to debate the EU-Singapore trade and investment agreements ahead of votes in Council on signature and conclusion. The EU has negotiated a broad and ambitious package with Singapore, which offers tangible benefits to the United Kingdom. The Government have long supported efforts to strengthen trade relations with Singapore, and I welcome the opportunity today to set out what was negotiated and what the Government’s future plans are with respect to Singapore when we leave the European Union.
As I have said before, free trade plays a vital role in stimulating economic growth, creating jobs and providing greater consumer choice and confidence. The Government are clear that the UK will continue to be a beacon of support for free trade globally. We will continue to support the EU’s ambitious trade agenda while we remain an EU member state. That includes some 40 trade agreements, including that with Singapore. As we leave the EU, UK support for those agreements will send a positive message about our commitment to global free trade.
Hon. Members will have seen from the Government’s detailed and comprehensive impact assessment that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole said, the EU-Singapore FTA is estimated to be worth up to £95 million annually to the UK’s GDP in the long run. As he noted, UK imports are indeed due to grow by approximately £600 million per year in the long run. That will mean consumers benefiting from lower prices, and businesses from reduced input costs. That, in turn, will help businesses proudly to export and champion their final products around the world.
Imports and their associated gains can and do contribute positively to GDP, as in the case of the EU-Singapore FTA. As I have already noted, it is estimated that those gains, in addition to the nearly £300 million increase in UK exports driven strongly by UK services, will result in a long-term benefit to UK GDP of £95 million per annum.
Singapore is already one of the most open markets globally, regularly featuring towards the top of the World Bank’s “Ease of Doing Business” awards. The gains from the FTA are not on the scale of other EU trade agreements of similar scope and depth, such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement or the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement, because of the nature of the business environment and trade. Nevertheless, there are tangible benefits for the UK, in addition to long-term benefits associated with fostering closer ties with a leading member of the Association of South East Asian Nations, whose region is expected to continue to experience strong economic growth. Indeed, as my Department never fails to point out on occasions such as this, some 90% of the world’s growth is going to happen outwith the European Union in the future.
I want to make it clear today, as I and the Government have done previously with respect to other EU trade agreements, that the delivery of public health services and public utilities is safeguarded in the trade in services aspect of all EU free trade agreements, including with Singapore. For the avoidance of any doubt, that includes the NHS, for the UK; it will remain in the domain of UK Governments, not our trade partners, to control. As confirmation of that, I direct Members to chapter 8 of the free trade agreement and chapter 2 of the investor protection agreement, where it is made real. I also want to make it clear that commitment to labour rights and environmental standards is explicitly referenced in the agreement, and neither party will seek to reduce those thresholds to boost trade. In that respect, I refer Members to chapter 12 of the free trade agreement.
I am confident that the benefits of the free trade agreement can be enjoyed with a clear conscience, with British businesses free to tap into the Singaporean market with ever greater ease and to benefit from greater access across a range of service sectors, improved access to Singapore Government procurement markets, increased protection for intellectual property rights and, among other areas, the removal of remaining tariffs in Singapore, such as for stout beer, in which the UK has a long tradition of excellence to rival even the biggest players—as I am sure you agree, Mr Bellingham.
The FTA is accompanied by the EU-Singapore investment protection agreement. Unlike the FTA, the IPA will require ratification by all member states before it comes into force. The Commission has been clear that it does not intend to provisionally apply any aspects of the agreement before that. The IPA contains the Commission’s preferred model of investor-state dispute settlement mechanism—the investment court system.
It is not envisaged that the IPA will enter into force before the UK’s exit from the EU in March 2019 nor, in fact, before the end of the implementation period. Other EU trade agreements that have required ratification by member states in addition to EU conclusion and third-country ratification have taken several years to enter into force following signature, such as the EU-Korea FTA, which took close to five years for all members states to ratify.
Although it is not anticipated that the IPA will apply to the UK as we move to leave the EU, the Government have no intention of getting in the way of the EU embarking on the process of signing and concluding the IPA. We intend to vote in favour of signature and conclusion of the IPA when we support signature and conclusion of the FTA next month.
With regards to future investment policy, we continue to review our trade and investment policy more generally, and are considering a wide range of options in the design of future bilateral trade and investment agreements. Of course, the UK-Singapore bilateral investment treaty is still in existence, but it is worth pointing out that in the years that it has existed, since 1975, it has never been used.
I turn now to the Government’s future ambitions for our trade relations with Singapore once we have left the EU. As has been communicated extensively, the EU and the UK agreed at the March European Council that international agreements that the UK is party to through its EU membership should continue to apply to the UK during the implementation period. Text to that effect has been agreed in the draft withdrawal agreement. On that basis, the EU-Singapore FTA will apply to the UK during the implementation period once it has entered into force, although, as I said, it is not envisaged that the IPA will enter into force in time to apply during the implementation period. The EU is due to notify third countries of that approach, and the Government are satisfied that legal clarity for that approach is sufficiently underpinned by international law and practice, including by the provisions of the withdrawal agreement itself.
At a bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in April, and in the accompanying public statement, Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee welcomed the approach of providing continuity during the implementation period. That was further confirmed during the Secretary of State’s recent visit to Singapore. The Government are working towards new bilateral arrangements with Singapore that will ensure continuity for the effects of the EU-Singapore FTA beyond the implementation period via a straight- forward technical process.
A dialogue with Singapore also seeks to address our future approach to investment protection and investor-state dispute settlement. We are working with our Singaporean partners on the best way to achieve that. The existing UK-Singapore bilateral investment treaty otherwise remains operational, as I have pointed out.
Although it is only right that our immediate priority is to secure continuity of trade agreements, Singapore is like-minded with the UK in its ambitions for free trade, so a transition deal with Singapore also provides a firm basis for developing trade arrangements further in future. That is fully in line with the model set out in the White Paper, under which the UK will be able to pursue an ambitious bilateral trade agenda that takes full advantage of the flexibility that is proposed for the future economic partnership.
On 16 July, the Government put forward proposals about the future parliamentary scrutiny of UK trade policy when we have left the EU. The package includes a strengthening of collaboration and consultation with all corners of this great country and a range of stakeholder demographics with a vested interest, including consumers, civil society and business. We also recently released four online public consultations on our intention to seek free trade agreements with the United States, Australia and New Zealand, as well as on our interest in the UK’s potential accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—CPTPP—of which Singapore is a key member. I want all voices to be heard to ensure that our future trade policy works for everyone, and I encourage anyone interested to take part in those consultations. We will also consult with the devolved authorities and many other interested parties.
While the UK remains an EU member state, the Government remain committed to working with Parliament, via engagement with the European scrutiny Committees, to facilitate thorough scrutiny of EU trade agreements. That is particularly the case for EU-only agreements, such as the EU-Singapore FTA that we are looking at today and others that Parliament will not be required to debate and vote on, in the absence of the need for member state ratification. It is partly for this reason that I am pleased to be here to debate the Singapore agreements ahead of their signature.
In line with the Government’s commitment to transparency, my Department will continue to work with the European scrutiny Committees to identify appropriate ways to ensure thorough scrutiny of EU legislation and agreements both now and during the implementation period. In line with that, the Government are continuing negotiations regarding the UK’s and EU’s rights and responsibilities during the implementation period, including on the UK’s continued access to EU documents.
While we are not yet in a position to formally announce arrangements, I can be clear that the Government support a strong scrutiny process and will continue to support and facilitate this for as long as EU legislation continues to affect the UK. The Government will engage in dialogue with the Committees as to how this may best be achieved on the basis of the detailed arrangements for the period agreed between the UK and the EU. I understand that official-level discussions have already begun and that the Department for Exiting the European Union will write to the European Scrutiny Committee presently to take this matter further.
To conclude, I thank Committee members, and Parliament more generally, for their engagement in this debate. We have the opportunity today to demonstrate strong support for free trade. The EU-Singapore FTA is an excellent agreement for the UK that will benefit UK exporters, importers and consumers, and Singapore has committed to transitioning it when we leave the EU. The Government will continue to engage with Singapore on other trade-related matters, including future investment arrangements.
I am confident that we will be able to build strong ties with an important player in the ASEAN region and a key ally in support of global free trade now and in the future. I look forward to the opportunity to support the signing and conclusion of the agreements when the Council votes later in October.
The Chair
We now have until 5.36 pm for questions. Are there no questions? In that case, I call the Minister to move the motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 7966/18 on the signature of the proposed agreement along with Addenda numbered 1 to 13 and European Union Document No. 7967/18 on the conclusion of the proposed agreement along with Addenda numbered 1 to 13; welcomes the proposed signature and conclusion, on behalf of the EU, of the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement; further notes European Union Document No. 7973/18 on the signature of the proposed agreement along with Addenda numbered 1 to 2 and European Union Document No. 7974/18 on the conclusion of the proposed agreement along with Addenda numbered 1 to 2; and further notes the signature and conclusion of the proposed Investment Protection Agreement between the EU and its Member States and Singapore.—(George Hollingbery.)
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and his Committee on the estimable questions that they put to the Minister, and I am grateful to follow him. This is another important debate that sets out, in part, our post-Brexit future.
However, we are again here at the behest not of the Government but of the European Scrutiny Committee, which has directed that the House be afforded an opportunity to debate this trade agreement, which may well define our future relationship with Singapore after we leave the EU—if the Government succeed in rolling over the trade agreements that we currently have by virtue of being an EU member state.
The European Scrutiny Committee refused to clear the Government to sign these trade agreements precisely because it considered that
“both proposed agreements…have significant legal and policy implications for the UK, both whilst a member of the EU and after its exit”.
While the debate is therefore welcome, let us be clear that this opportunity does not give Members the capacity to properly scrutinise the agreements, nor does it give Parliament any capacity to shape this or any future trade agreement between the UK and Singapore. Parliament should have had this debate prior to negotiations on these agreements commencing in 2010.
The agreements initially formed a single agreement, concluded in 2014, but they were split out and presented as separate agreements in 2018 as a result of widespread public opposition to the European Union’s approach to mixed trade agreements and particularly, of course, to the controversial inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. I note in passing that the Minister said that the ICS was the Commission’s preferred method of dealing with those. If he were to read the European Scrutiny Committee’s “Thirty-fourth Report of Session 2017-19”, he would see at paragraph 1.38 that in fact
“the Commission considers that the ICS fails to deal with the need to maintain consistency of case law and will also become a financial and human resource drain on the EU as the number of individual investment courts established under each new FTA multiplies.”
That is why, in September 2017,
“the Commission put forward a proposal for the opening of negotiations”
on “a multilateral investment court”. Therefore, I do not think it is correct to say that the ICS was the preferred model; the Minister may care to reflect on that.
To fast-track components of the initial agreement, we now have these two separate but interrelated agreements before us today. It would therefore be sensible, logical and transparent if this Committee were empowered to consider them separately, but the Government have not organised the business to facilitate that end, and the controversial aspects of the initial agreement remain as they were. Were it possible to vote separately on the free trade agreement, it is highly probable that that element would sail through the Committee unopposed. The investment protection agreement, however, is bedevilled with both the policy and the legal problems that even those not inveterately opposed to ISDS mechanisms as such might still consider so potentially injurious as to persuade them to reject the IPA as a whole.
Singapore has historically been an important trading partner for the United Kingdom. The strait of Singapore is one of the world’s most important shipping channels, and its deep waters and safe harbour have seen Singapore become the world’s second busiest maritime port, accounting for one fifth of the world’s shipping container traffic. And as one of the region’s few Commonwealth members, with English being one of the country’s four official languages and with a legal system largely based on common law, it is no surprise that it remains an important trading partner for the UK.
More than half our exports to south-east Asia—specifically, the ASEAN countries—are shipped through Singapore. They were worth about £5.6 billion in 2014, with our top exports consisting of machinery and transport equipment, business services, financial and insurance services, miscellaneous manufactured articles, transport services, chemicals, food and beverages and so on. Singapore is our 16th largest export partner country—it is the eighth, if the EU is counted as a single export market—and accounted for 1.6% of all our exports last year.
The UK has maintained a healthy trade surplus with Singapore, with our exports doubling imports in 2017, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics. Furthermore, the UK is currently the largest EU investor in Singapore and the fifth largest total source of foreign direct investment in Singapore, with investments worth more than £30 billion at the end of 2014. Conversely, half of Singapore’s FDI in the EU goes into the UK.
Labour Members want to see the UK’s trade with the rest of the world growing. We want to help British businesses to take advantage of opportunities to export overseas, and to encourage investment in our domestic industries. We want to see free trade agreements that open up market access for British businesses, that protect and elevate rights and standards and that do not inhibit or erode the capacity of Governments to legislate in the public interest. We are pro-trade and pro-investment and believe that protecting, preserving and promoting the UK economy and jobs should be key priorities for any and all of our trade negotiations. However, those are criteria to be evaluated and applied; they are not just labels to be stuck on to any and every trade agreement available, on the false assumption that a rise in GDP per se will increase the wealth and wellbeing of the country as a whole. It is perfectly possible for GDP to rise in a country and for equality to be diminished, so it is incumbent on us to properly scrutinise the deal, as we are supposed to be doing.
British businesses already export freely and substantially to Singapore where the legal system, regulations and standards are similar to ours. Singapore is often listed at the top of the World Bank rankings as the easiest place to do business—it is currently second. According to the Department for International Trade, more than 1,000 British businesses have an established presence in Singapore and more than 30,000 British nationals reside in the city state. In his response letter to the European Scrutiny Committee, the Minister says:
“The EUSFTA will enable businesses to trade under preferences and as a result benefit from a reduction in tariffs and Non-Tariff Measure…costs, making it cheaper to export to Singapore. Businesses will also benefit from cheaper imports from Singapore. The elimination of tariffs and NTMs will make UK businesses more competitive in the Singaporean market.”
Singapore has famously long since taken an open approach to trade with very few tariffs on imports. In fact, well over 99% of imports to Singapore are tariff-free. According to the Department for International Trade, only six product lines are subject to tariffs, and they are alcoholic drinks. The Government’s impact assessment recognises that:
“UK exports of goods to Singapore face few tariffs. Most of the gain to GDP is from the removal of regulatory non-tariff measures in services and goods that can impede trade.”
However, what those non-tariff measures are and the extent to which they might impede trade for British businesses is not analysed in any further detail.
What we do know is that the UK and Singapore have a common history, shared language, common law and legal system and, according to the DIT, similar technical standards. Although it is acknowledged that an FTA with Singapore might offer some insurance in the extremely unlikely scenario that Singapore decides to impose tariffs at the upper end of its WTO bound schedules, the extent to which the trade agreement removes tariffs and non-tariff barriers might be more benefit to Singaporean goods exporters to the EU and other businesses across the EU, which do not already enjoy the same volume of trade with Singapore that British businesses do.
Clearly, our burgeoning exports of Scotch whisky will benefit from the removal of the only tariffs imposed by Singapore on our goods, which is most welcome, but the obvious question is, who benefits and how? The Government have suggested that there will be an increase in UK exports to Singapore of £296 million, but have not conducted a proper calculation or carried out any assessment as to what sectors stand to benefit. Paragraph 7.6 of the impact assessment admits that no proper assessment has been carried out of the benefits of the trade agreement to the United Kingdom.
Instead, the Government have conducted an arbitrary calculation on the basis of our existing share of EU trade with Singapore, which has declined over the past decade. The Government have simply looked to the EU-wide impact assessment conducted by the European Commission and said, “That’ll do,” and apportioned the same to the UK without any proper analysis of their own about the future. On the same basis, they have suggested that there will be an increase in imports of some £607 million, which will have a substantial impact on our current trade surplus with Singapore. By their analysis, our balance of trade is projected to worsen.
Will the Minister tell us which sectors he anticipates will be most affected? Paragraph 7.32 of the impact assessment notes:
“Due to increased competition from Singaporean firms it is possible that some less efficient UK firms may have to exit the market”,
as he reiterated in his response to the European Scrutiny Committee. Does he not believe that it would be proper and prudent to consider which sectors are at risk? A cursory glance at Singapore’s top exports suggests that the country’s primary goods exports include machinery and equipment, petroleum, chemicals and miscellaneous manufactured articles. However, Singapore has positioned itself as Asia’s leading wealth management centre and a burgeoning financial services centre. While the Government’s impact assessment gives no indication of how many jobs might be lost or in which sectors and firms—although it says that some may be—we might expect this impact to be felt most keenly in those sectors of our economy. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that in his reply.
Those points are not mere Opposition cavilling. In fact, the Regulatory Policy Committee, in its report of 29 June, made trenchant criticisms in precisely this area, saying:
“The assessment should provide a more balanced analysis on the effects of competition resulting from trade liberalisation. For example, the Department states that UK firms will benefit from being able to bid for Singapore public procurement contracts but does not mention the increased competition for UK public procurement contracts resulting from EUSFTA. The Department outlines the impacts of greater market access between the UK and Singapore but does not mention the impacts on the UK of greater market access between the EU and Singapore. The assessment should provide a discussion of how the EUSFTA could lead to Singapore competing with the UK for EU business. In the RPC’s initial review notice, the Department was asked to consider possible costs to the UK of greater market access such as skilled labour migration and/or greater competition for EU public procurement contracts. The Department did not include a discussion of these costs. The assessment would have benefited from providing a more balanced perspective on the costs and benefits of greater market access.”
Regarding job losses, the Regulatory Policy Committee said:
“The assessment acknowledges that UK businesses may become less price competitive and experience a fall in domestic production. The Department should provide analysis of which sectors would be most affected by increased competition. It would have also been beneficial had the Department acknowledge possible increases in UK unemployment (especially for certain skills) as a result of increased competition faced by UK firms. The Department expects imports from Singapore to increase by £607 million in the long-run. Given the size of the potential increase in imports the assessment would have benefited from a more detailed analysis of how this could impact UK firms.”
On the balance of trade, that Committee said:
“The Department argues that the FTA has a positive impact on UK GDP despite the fact that increases in UK imports (£607 million in the long run) are expected to be greater than increases in UK exports (£296 million in the long run). It does not provide a clear explanation of its reasons for believing this to be the case within the IA, but has provided relevant evidence in subsequent correspondence.”
The Minister should have faced up to these questions. Some of them were presented by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole.
The listing of geographical indications is another matter, and one that this Government seem minded to forget or ignore. If the Government were serious about growing our exports and opening up opportunities for British businesses overseas, one might imagine that they would follow the example set by other nations and seek protections for our famous products. We saw precisely zero geographical indications listed by the UK in the Canada trade agreement. The Singapore agreement lists just one. Certainly, it is right that Scotch whisky should be afforded protected status in the Singaporean agreement. However, what about all our other famous quality produce—Scottish salmon, Welsh lamb and beef, Jersey Royal potatoes, Stilton cheese and many more—which qualifies for protected status but which the Government have not sought to protect? The Government have made a choice. They would prefer a flood of cheaper imports, even if that would destroy those sectors and put an end to some of our special heritage producers.
Trade negotiations are always about balancing consumer and producer interests, but many now believe that the Government have got that balance wrong. They are prioritising reductions in consumer prices over economic growth, export growth and jobs growth. Having conducted no assessment of the existing non-tariff barriers to trade, and having failed to carry out a meaningful review of the impact of the trade agreement on our economy as a whole, the Government have instead focused on the potential costs to businesses of reading the trade agreement. Annex D of the impact assessment suggests that the only costs to business will be as a result of the time it will take people to read the text. The Minister should know that that is being openly laughed at by trade commentators and analysts. That the Department has expended time and resource on calculating how long it took to read the agreement, but has not committed any resource to investigating what it will mean for jobs in the United Kingdom, is farcical. It is no substitute for a proper analysis of the real impact on business. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what formal consultation his Department has undertaken with business that has led it to conclude that reading time is the real issue to be faced in relation to the trade agreement with Singapore. The Minister knows that after Brexit he cannot simply divvy up any EU impact assessment and pluck future specific UK figures from general EU ones. Why does his Department not undertake proper assessments now?
Under the terms of the draft withdrawal agreement the Government have sought to ensure that the deal with Singapore, among others, will continue to apply to the UK even once we have ceased to be members of the EU, until the end of the transition period. However, the legal application of that remains entirely unclear, and the House has been given little confidence that the Government believe they may be able to ensure such participation in the relevant trade agreements, or that a corresponding future trade agreement can be concluded in short order between the UK and those third countries. Have the Government received formal confirmation that the UK can participate in the trade agreements in question during the withdrawal period—from Singapore or, indeed, any of the third countries with which the EU has an agreement? Have the Government received formal confirmation from Singapore that it will not seek to negotiate any substantive changes to the terms of the agreement? Do they consider that it is, in fact, the best agreement for the future trade relationship between the UK and Singapore, rather than the EU and Singapore?
I now come to the investment protection agreement: the initial agreement between the EU and Singapore was referred to the European Court of Justice, which ruled in May 2017 that it touched on matters that were in the competence of member states and not of the EU operating under the common commercial policy. Specifically, the Court found that portfolio investment and investor protection aspects of trade agreements could not be concluded by the Commission without having been ratified by each member state at national and regional level, where appropriate. That followed widespread public outcry and political opposition across the European Union. Famously the Walloon Parliament in Belgium refused to ratify the trade agreement with Canada, because of concerns about its investment aspects—in particular the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. That is now repackaged as the investment court system. Belgium has referred the matter to the European Court of Justice, to seek a ruling as to whether the investment court system is even compatible with EU law. Neither France, Germany nor the Netherlands have ratified that agreement, with the Dutch Government waiting on the ECJ ruling before determining how to proceed. In Germany, the issue is being heard before their domestic constitutional courts to determine whether the ICS is compatible with the German constitution.
It is because the progress of the investor protection aspects of the agreement with Singapore face the same opposition in principle, and lengthy delay in ratification, that the EU has seen fit to split out the agreement into two separate documents, such that a free trade agreement can be ratified post-haste, leaving the investment protection agreement to one side. The investment protection agreement contains an ISDS mechanism in the form of the investment court system, which has already been heavily criticised in the EU-Canada agreement.
ISDS mechanisms give superior legal rights only to foreign investors to raise disputes against Governments in order to petition for compensation where their profits, or even potential profits, are impacted by legislative or public policy decisions. This effectively allows companies to sue Governments when they legislate in the public interest—for example, when introducing plain packaging for cigarettes, national insurance, minimum wages or the banning of fossil fuels. These provisions have become increasingly commonplace in new generation trade agreements, resulting in widespread international public outcry against deals such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.
It has always seemed to me a curious irony that the Conservative party opposes the ECJ on the grounds that it is a supranational court, but sees no fundamental problem in allowing foreign investors the right to challenge and strike out domestic legislation introduced in the public interest through a supranational court—power and rights specifically not afforded to our domestic companies. The proliferation of ISDS can encourage treaty shopping, whereby investors restructure their activities and establish them in countries where they may benefit from ISDS mechanisms should they seek to effect policy change or to petition for compensation.
It is increasingly likely that the UK could face costly and damaging dispute proceedings as more and more foreign investors are given such powers under these agreements, including the EU-Singapore investment protection agreement. The very threat of facing such a case, and the often substantial costs involved, even when the chance of winning is in the Government’s favour, can clearly deter Governments from pursuing actions in the public interest—a “regulatory chill” effect.
It is not only European Governments who have expressed concerns about ISDS; many international Governments have refused to accept such chapters in trade agreements. South Africa, India and New Zealand have all stated their opposition to them, and New Zealand has gone so far as to sign side letters with five counter-signatories to the Trans-Pacific Partnership disapplying the ISDS provisions included in that agreement. Their rationale is that their respective domestic court systems are adequately capable of settling any disputes.
Indeed, if our courts are sufficient for British companies, why should they not be considered so for foreign investors too? The UK’s has long been considered a safe legal system and, a significant proportion of global trade is governed by legal documents indicating the UK as the applicable legal jurisdiction. Why, in any event, should British taxpayers be on the hook for the ordinary commercial risks faced by foreign investors?
Recognising the flaws in the arbitration model of ISDS, the European Commission moved to a court-based system—the investment court system. That goes only some of the way to mitigating the risk of spurious claims being brought forward and ruled upon by pay-per-case arbitrators but does nothing whatever to address the perverse superior legal rights afforded to foreign investors, nor the underlying threat to public services and the ability of our Government to implement policy or to legislate in the public interest.
Furthermore, the UK has already entered into a bilateral investment treaty with Singapore, which came into force on 22 July 1975. The Minister advised the European Scrutiny Committee that that agreement would be suspended should the EU-Singapore IPA come into force. Should the UK leave the EU prior to the IPA coming into force, what will be the governing agreement for the UK’s future relationship with Singapore? Will the Minister confirm that he is proposing to increase the protection afforded to Singapore companies wishing to challenge the UK Government from 10 years in the current bilateral investment treaty to 20 years, the sunset clause in the new agreement? It seems patently absurd to sign a document into force when the Minister admits:
“It is not anticipated that the IPA will be ratified by all Member States, concluded by the EU and have entered into force before the UK’s exit from the EU, or indeed by the end of the Implementation Period.”
The problem is far greater than the Minister seems to realise. The IPA is a mixed competence agreement requiring ratification in each of the EU member states individually. The ratification process will not commence until after the European Parliament has completed its own ratification of the agreement. The European Parliament vote is scheduled for 2019, so the national ratification process will not commence across the European Union until after the UK has left the EU.
We must remember that even if the EU’s trade agreements continue to apply to the UK during the transition period, the UK will no longer participate in the structures of the EU during that period. Worse still, the Government’s Trade Bill gives them the power to turn signed EU agreements into UK agreements even before they have been ratified by the EU, so at the end of 2020 we could be left in the absurd position whereby the EU-Singapore IPA has not been ratified but the UK has already copied its provisions into a UK-Singapore IPA, to replace our existing UK-Singapore BIT, and we are enforcing it unilaterally. Is it the Minister’s intention that we should be bound none the less by the EU-Singapore IPA even if that agreement should come into force years after we have left the EU?
Of course, that remains somewhat dependent on the findings of the ECJ as to whether the investment court system and ISDS provisions are even compatible with EU law. Will the Minister tell us what assessment his Department has carried out in respect of that and precisely what it would mean for any agreement that the UK has entered into? In particular, if the UK has ratified such an agreement, exercising our own competence, as is the case with this agreement, could the agreement continue to apply even if struck down by the ECJ and thus no longer applicable across the remaining EU member states?
Clearly a number of substantive issues have not been properly addressed thus far by the Government. The European Scrutiny Committee has quite properly sought clarification, but sadly the Government have not seen fit to respond properly and fully to those concerns. Parliament must be afforded an opportunity for a timely and informed debate on our trade agreements and future trade relations with other countries. Such a debate must be supported by clear facts about: market growth opportunities; which barriers to trade are being removed or lowered; which sectors stand to gain or to lose; the impact on jobs in this country; and the rights afforded to foreign investors.
That said, we believe that the Singapore free trade agreement as it currently stands could be a model for a future UK-Singapore relationship. Had we been voting on that agreement alone, we would have supported the Government’s decision to proceed with signing the agreement despite the appalling lack of facts and coherent analysis from the Government. That they have bundled that agreement together with the investment protection agreement, despite the clear policy and legal problems presented, means that we cannot possibly vote in favour of the motion.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I had not intended to speak, but I have a number of criticisms of the Government. On the Brexit process, for instance, whether we keep existing free trade agreements or make new ones, will it be possible for agreements to be rolled over in time for exit day? I have real doubts about the Department’s commitment to securing the arrangements for that.
The contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North prompts me to query the conclusions he has reached. He takes a similar stance on this agreement as he took to our trade agreements with Canada and Japan. As a party, we cannot take a purist, oppositionalist view to all potential trade agreements. No trade agreements are perfect. They all involve some degree of compromise. By no means do I say that the Singapore-European Union free trade agreement is perfect—I am sure, were we all individually in charge, we would all have far greater insight than the negotiators and be able to secure a far better deal—but I am worried that there are real firms, real jobs and a real economy in the real world that may be affected if we turned our face against all proposed trade agreements. It is therefore not responsible to oppose a motion that simply welcomes the proposed signature and conclusion of the EU-Singapore free trade agreement.
The motion notes the signature of the IPA. As I understand it, the Singapore-EU IPA is similar to the Canadian arrangement and far superior to that which was mooted in the proposed TTIP agreement with the United States. A number of objections were made to that, but as I see it, the proposal we are debating is more transparent and would have less impact on public procurement. We have to weigh up this whole question in the round.
At best, my hon. Friend may not be seeing the wood for the trees. If we turn our face against all future trade agreements, we may inhibit the trading gains and growth that we may be able to secure for our constituents. At worst, we are allowing the anti-trade ideological zeal from some quarters on the left to infect us against free trade arrangements more generally. It would be terribly damaging to allow the Labour party to get into that stance.
Barry Gardiner
I have delayed the Committee quite enough, so I do not propose to intervene for long, but I hope my hon. Friend understands that I made it clear that we in the Labour party would support the free trade agreement element of what we are discussing. We believe the Government have not handled the matter correctly. We believe that the impact assessment should have been much better, and that a number of questions rightly raised by the European Scrutiny Committee, which the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole put forward, should have been addressed much earlier. Having said that, we would support the free trade agreement element. There is no dispute whatsoever between my hon. Friend and I on that matter. We must enhance trade and let business in this country thrive, for the sake of our economy, jobs and growth.
However, the Government bundled the IPA in this way. They could have separated it out. In fact, the European Union has tried to separate these things out. This Government have not. That is their failing. They cannot expect us to swallow something that is, in policy terms and in logical, logistical and chronological terms, legally problematic along with the free trade agreement, which otherwise we would have accepted.
Mr Leslie
I heard my hon. Friend’s argument the first time. As I said, we can take an absolute view—that unless we get 100% perfection in every area, we will vote against things—but we also need to take a view on our responsibilities with our vote. If my hon. Friend’s very powerful speech persuaded all Committee members to take the same view that he did, the UK would turn down the ratification of the EU-Singapore free trade agreement and the British contribution, as we try to negotiate amicable and cordial relationships with the rest of the EU, would be to say “Get lost!” to the EU-Singapore trade arrangement. At this particular time, it would not be prudent, diplomatic or wise, especially as we are leaving, for the UK to sabotage the EU’s trade arrangements with Singapore. I happen to think that we should support a Singapore-UK free trade agreement in these terms—I am glad to hear him say that. Obviously, I would want that to be rolled over.
This agreement is an important link to the ASEAN economies; it has net benefits for our constituents. As Vic Feather, the famous trade unionist from Bradford, once said, “If your boy comes home from school with 99 out of 100, don’t hit him over the head.” Sometimes we need to accept that there are gains to be had from being responsible and taking the best that might be on offer. Sure, it could be better and improved, but a responsible approach to trade at this particularly sensitive time in our negotiations with the European Union would not be to block the EU-Singapore trade deal. My hon. Friend may be right that it is a bit mischievous for the Government potentially to wrap these things together in the motion, but the motion is simply a “take note” motion. There are other ways and means of raising these particular issues. I am not minded to oppose the motion before the Committee.
George Hollingbery
I would like to correct the record if I may, Sir Henry, because I called you Mr Bellingham throughout my remarks, which I am sure others noticed but I am afraid I did not, and I apologise.
With the leave of the Committee, I will respond briefly to the points raised by the hon. Member for Brent North. Non-tariff measures are very important, but it is not our analysis that they are better for Singapore than they are for the UK in these agreements. I refer the hon. Gentleman to graph 5 in paragraph 1.30 of the economic impact assessment, where he will find a considerable number of areas where Singapore imposes non-tariff measures—for example, instruments, clocks, recorders and reproducers, vehicles, aircraft and vessels, machinery and electrical equipment, base metals and articles, textiles and articles, and paper and paperboard.
The list goes on and on. Hon. Members may not have this document to hand, but by comparison there is another graph that shows the number of non-tariff measures applied by the UK on Singapore. There are almost none at all that we can evidence. The impact assessment absolutely does assess that, and it is quite clear to me on reading it that there are many more measures to be washed away by Singapore than there are by the UK. I will give a few more examples. Banks will be able to increase the numbers of branches, which was previously controlled. Insurance sales will be able to be made online in ways that were not possible before because of regulations. Substantial procurement opportunities will be opened up that hitherto did not exist because the entities being addressed were not included in the procurement schedule. There are all sorts of areas where the FTA opens up opportunities for British business.
On the sectors most affected by increased imports, I do not have the evidence to hand to give the hon. Gentleman, but my impression is that a good deal of what will occur in this area is import substitution, because an awful lot of what Singapore supplies to the UK is intermediate goods that go on to make other goods. I would expect the impact to be greater on substitution than on British companies. That is not to deny that there will be an impact; indeed, the impact assessment addresses that. I should probably say to him that the costs identified in the impact assessment, which he finds so risible, are about the cost of compliance or using the FTA. They are not costs to the British economy; they are simply the costs to businesses of taking on board the FTA and understanding it so that they can participate in that market. The actual net costs, as the FTA will affect the United Kingdom because of potential job losses and reductions in GDP, are accounted for in the £95 million figure. Therefore, they are properly modelled.
There are issues with the model, and I would not disagree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not entirely ideal, but the effects for the UK consumer and businesses as a whole, and for UK GDP, are undoubtedly positive. Furthermore, the estimates use bound figures for the liberalisation of services; basically, all they do is lock in calculations as to the certainty of the old rules now being completely complied with. They do not look at the potential for new services coming into the Singaporean market from UK companies and, despite the fact that this is a sensible, reasonable and rational estimate of £95 million, we believe that if we really bottom out, there are potentially much greater benefits to be had.
The hon. Gentleman asked questions about the participation agreements and whether they are confirmed in the EU mechanism, which I think I addressed in my opening remarks. The answer to the question about changes to the agreement, and whether we will use clause 2 powers from the Trade Bill to radically change this agreement, is unequivocally no. The clause 2 powers are there to transition agreements. That is not to say that there will not be some circumstances where it might be appropriate to use clause 2 powers to change that agreement; if they change slightly, if there are bodies that arise and fall away, that might well be something that we would look at in the future. However, it would be by far and away our preference to use clause 2 powers for transition alone. I do not rule out the fact that clause 2 powers exist and can be used for further work at a later date.
If and when it is agreed that both sides in this bilateral relationship feel it is appropriate for more work to be done on a future trade agreement that would substantially modify what has been transitioned for the sake of continuity for business and consumers, that will almost certainly come back as a future trade agreement and will therefore engender all the mechanisms that the Government have described around those. That would be made clear at the time; we make no judgment at the moment, but that mechanism exists to look at new free trade agreements and the Government will come forward with proposals at the time for what they want to do.
Of course, the clause 2 powers also carry with them substantial obligations to inform Parliament about how an agreement has changed, what the substantial nature of that change is and how any delegated legislation will enact the changes described. Parliament will remain totally informed of any changes that the Government propose under clause 2 powers. That is the compromise that was reached on the new clause 6 argument, which the hon. Gentleman will well recall. I believe the House accepted that as a sensible, transparent way of dealing with this issue, and of course it must be agreed in both Houses. If we have a new free trade agreement, that will undoubtedly come forward under the new mechanism that the Government have described, some elements of which are still being developed.
Barry Gardiner
I appreciate that the Minister is trying to answer the specifics of the questions I have posed. Do I take it that what he has just said is confirmation that the Government have not received formal confirmation from Singapore that Singapore will not seek to negotiate any substantive changes to the terms of this agreement? If that is the case, given that we have an existing bilateral investment treaty with Singapore, does he not see that there is a certain convolution—to put it no more strongly—in moving from an existing bilateral investment treaty to a future treaty that we are seeking to take as a roll-over now, which will then be subject to further clauses of negotiation to be a substantive further treaty in due course? Does he not see that as a somewhat otiose methodology?
George Hollingbery
I think all I want to add is that we currently have the bilateral investment treaty in place and any future trade agreements or any changes will go through the mechanisms. On our attitude to future investment treaties that go along with the free trade agreement, the thinking is not set on either side and those negotiations continue. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but I do not believe it is a concern; I believe it is very straightforward. The Singaporean Government, through the Prime Minister, have made very clear indications to us that they will be willing to accept a technical replication and then—at a future date yet to be agreed and through conversations yet to be had—we will discuss future arrangements, but nothing is set in stone in that way.
On investment protection arrangements more generally, Committee members will know very well why these exist. If one signs free trade agreements and one wants one’s companies to be able to invest in a foreign territory where there is the slightest question about the rule of law in that area—I do not necessarily apply that to Singapore in any way, shape or form, but there are plenty of companies out there looking for that level of confidence, which is a good thing to put in place—or simply if a company or investor decides to make an investment in a third-party country whose Government have undertaken to have in place certain arrangements that the business relies upon, then it seems reasonable to have in place some mechanism to pursue a dispute where promises have not been kept, if the investment was made on the basis that certain regulations or agreements would be implemented in a certain way.
I think this is probably just a difference of principle between us. It seems to me that the Labour party has an issue with this. I believe that such a mechanism makes it a great deal easier for companies to consider investing abroad, and I would have thought that it was something that we would want to encourage.
I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham East for his comments. I will be happy to engage with him on the rolling-over of existing trade agreements at some stage—although I note that I already have, in the International Trade Committee last week; in which case I will finally wrap up.
Today we have discussed the benefits of the EU-Singapore FTA. We have also heard the reservations and concerns of hon. Members. I truly believe that the FTA is a positive agreement for the UK, and that it is in our national interest to see that it is signed and concluded. Although it is not anticipated that the IPA will apply to the UK before we leave the EU or during the implementation period, it is only right that the UK ensures that fellow member states can get on with the business of ratifying the agreement by supporting signature and conclusion of this agreement. After all, we remain members of the European Union and we have obligations that we must fulfil.
As the UK asserts its position as a global champion of free trade, now and as we leave the EU, we will continue to play an active and supportive role in the development and delivery of EU trade policy. We will also continue to work together to ensure continuity of our trading relationship as we leave the EU. I have been clear about the Government’s commitment to engaging further with Parliament as we develop our independent trade policy, and we will continue to work with stakeholders across the whole of the UK. I commend the Government’s motion to the Committee and urge members to support it.
Question put.
Petition
Camelford Bypass
Westminster Hall
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Vote Leave Campaign: Electoral Law
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 223729 relating to rescinding Article 50 if the Vote Leave campaign broke electoral laws.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
The petition raises an issue that is clearly timely, lively and of huge interest, because almost 200,000 people have signed it in less than three months, including more than 1,000 people from my constituency of Cambridge. I thought it likely that many hon. Members would wish to contribute to a debate on this issue. I thought that some might have spoken on the subject of the petition, some on related subjects and some to confirm pre-existing positions—I confess that I am no exception in that regard. I also suspect that a few people will wish to intervene and, as Mr Speaker would probably put it, “beetle away”. I entirely understand and I will be generous in taking interventions. However, to avoid my being knocked off course completely, I thought that I would first set out the ground I intend to cover and then hon. Members can judge for themselves where best to make their interventions.
May I say at the outset that the wording of the petition is admirably succinct and to the point, perhaps unlike some of our proceedings? It says what I suspect many people would assume is obvious. To paraphrase, it roughly says, “If someone cheats, then the result is invalid and it doesn’t count.” Because I did not like the result of the EU referendum, I obviously agree entirely, but unfortunately for me and for all those who feel the same, things are sadly a bit more complicated than that. It is those issues that I wish to explore initially. In passing, I will suggest that—sadly—cheating in elections or allegations of such are not new or rare. I will examine the mechanisms that we have to explore such charges, and the sanctions and punishments that may be incurred, and I will consider whether they are consistent across different types of elections and votes.
I will say a little about the particular circumstances surrounding the 2016 referendum campaign. I will then address the issue of article 50, and the views about the options that are potentially open to us. In passing, I will reflect on the complicated issues of consent within a democracy and the extent to which some of these judgments are legal issues, while some ultimately may be political issues.
I will conclude in a completely non-partisan way by saying, “Of course we were cheated, the whole thing has been a nonsense and we should stay in the European Union,” which I suspect is what the vast majority of those who signed the petition actually feel. I recognise, however, that there may be others in Westminster Hall today who feel differently. On a more serious note, I will try to offer a potential way forward to address what has undeniably been a distinctly fraught couple of years for our politics.
Let me start, however, at the beginning. Last week, I had the pleasure of joining the Lord Mayor of the City of London at an event in Cambridge. I was struck by his opening comments. He said that he is guided by three principles: the first principle is the rule of law; the second principle is the rule of law; and the third principle is the rule of law. Given that he was addressing a group of lawyers, that seemed like quite a smart opening. However, it strikes me that what the Lord Mayor said—that he is guided by the rule of law—is something that all of us in this place can probably agree on. We are here as lawmakers, and we respect the law even if we disagree with some of it and seek to change it.
The opening part of the petition, which queries whether any laws have been broken, should be relatively simple to consider. We have a mechanism that was established by Parliament to supervise electoral contests. The Electoral Commission has conducted an extensive investigation into the referendum and it has concluded that laws were indeed broken. Vote Leave funnelled nearly £700,000 to another campaign group, BeLeave, and did not declare that the two campaign groups were working together.
The precise details of what happened remain contested; others may wish to talk about that. I recognise that Vote Leave argues that the investigations have been politically motivated. However, the investigation has been made and the conclusions are very clear—indeed, they are stark. Vote Leave was referred to the police and those found guilty have been fined, which is the punishment available to the Electoral Commission under the law.
The Electoral Commission has commented that that punishment is, in its view, insufficient. I agree, as I suspect do the 200,000 petitioners; that is the force of the petition. However, that is the law as it stands at the moment, which makes the jump in the first sentence of the petition quite a leap: from if the law has been broken to nullifying the result. That may be what many of us would like the law to be, but I am afraid that it is not the way it is in this case—or is it? A recurring theme in this debate is that no-one is entirely sure.
There will be lawyers in this Chamber who will know far more than me, but one aspect of the legal debate begins with the status of the referendum itself. In the Supreme Court judgment made in December 2016, when the Government were being challenged on the need for parliamentary approval to trigger article 50, it was judged that the EU referendum was not legally binding but advisory, so logically it cannot be ordered to be rerun by a court. The decision about whether to go back to the public after a referendum is not a legal judgement; it is a political one. The decision lies with us.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing this very important debate. I speak as somebody whose constituency voted to remain; I myself also voted to remain. Can he address one point? He has mentioned, rightly, that in legal terms, the referendum was advisory and not legally binding. Therefore, the nexus between the triggering of article 50 and the referendum is weaker than if the referendum had been legally binding. Does that not weaken the case for the referendum result to be overturned or for article 50 to be rescinded, because Parliament is making an even more independent judgment than would otherwise have been the case?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I rather thought, almost immediately we start getting pulled into the legal arguments. His point is a reasonable one, but of course there are arguments back and forth, and many of these things remain to be tested in court, as is so often the case. However, he might make that case.
The point that I am making, and this is a theme that I will return to throughout my speech, is that the law is for the lawyers, but a lot of these judgments will ultimately be political judgments, which need to be made in this place. We can make a choice, on the basis of what we have seen in the referendum, as to whether or not we think the referendum should be run again—it is up to us to do so.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that we have clarity on where the law stands, particularly in relation to whether article 50 can be rescinded? I am not sure whether he is aware of a legal case—the Wightman case—that is going through the Scottish courts, which I am peripherally involved with. It seeks to get a case to the Court of Justice of the European Union for it to rule, once and for all, on whether article 50 can be rescinded, because we need that clarity in respect of other decisions that we have to make in this place.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I very much agree; in fact, I will come on to that point a bit later. It is a very important point and, of course, it would have been helpful for all of us if the Government had pursued that option to make things clearer, so that we could all have made a sensible decision. However, another theme of my speech is the lack of clarity throughout the discussion of this subject, and I suspect that that will not change in the immediate future.
I do not intend to rehearse the arguments about the abuses that are alleged to have happened during the referendum campaign—in fact, in some cases abuses have been proven to have happened during the referendum campaign—but others may wish to do that. I will just note a couple of things from the excellent work by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee to uncover the extent of the wrongdoing committed by the Vote Leave campaign, which of course is the subject of the petition we are considering.
I cannot help but quote one reflection from the DCMS Committee’s report in relation to one of the key players:
“Mr Cummings’ contemptuous behaviour is unprecedented in the history of this Committee’s inquiries and underlines concerns about the difficulties of enforcing co-operation with Parliamentary scrutiny in the modern age.”
Beyond highlighting the lack of respect shown for the rules and procedures of this Parliament by Vote Leave, the Electoral Commission’s legal counsel stated that:
“Vote Leave has resisted our investigation from the start, including contesting our right as the statutory regulator to open the investigation. It has refused to cooperate, refused our requests to put forward a representative for interview, and forced us to use our legal powers to compel it to provide evidence.”
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent opening speech. On the point about people attending Committees, does he agree that the social media element has an impact on the close scrutiny that we need, not just of ourselves as Members of Parliament, but of elections in general? Because it is so new, it adds confusion and layers of fake news, making it even more difficult for the average citizen or voter to get to the bottom of what the truth is.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s observation. I do not think anyone would dispute the layers of complexity and difficulty, and the greater difficulty presented by social media. For some of us who have been grappling with electoral law over many years, social media makes it a whole lot more difficult, and I suspect we all know that we will need to update our procedures to try to cope with the challenges that are posed.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
For many of my constituents, this feels like an obvious point. There has been a breach of the law and there should be a way in which those who are responsible are held to account through our legal system. The fact that a general, local or European election or a local referendum would, in such a case, be voided in the High Court but that this referendum has not been seems nonsensical. I agree with the point my hon. Friend just made: that the rules, therefore, clearly need updating. Would my hon. Friend support me and others in calling for an inquiry, not just to understand the problems in the referendum, but to fix the rules for the future?
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend jumps ahead a little, but entirely correctly, to my conclusions. Over the next few minutes, I will show some of the inconsistencies and the need to update our rules and laws, and I very much hope that the Minister will listen closely.
Returning to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s conclusion, that was an extraordinarily strong statement, which frankly should make anyone in any way associated with the Vote Leave campaign at least wince—they should, more properly, be deeply ashamed. I cannot help noting that the alleged point of the entire campaign was to bring control back to this Parliament—a Parliament it now treats with contempt and disdain. The sheer hypocrisy, as well as the appalling boorishness, that the campaign has exhibited takes the breath away. How dare it wave the Union Jack when it so disrespects basic British values? Millions and millions of people who voted to leave will also have been horrified by its behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) put it succinctly when asking an urgent question on this matter in July:
“Who do these people think they are? They think they are above the law.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 227.]
Although this particular instance is controversial and unpleasant, and stinks of arrogance and an obnoxious disregard for our politics and our Parliament, over an issue that is extremely emotive for many of us, as well as highly significant for the country, it is important to remember that this is not the only occasion on which our politics has fallen short.
I have just made a pretty strong attack, so I will try to lighten the mood for a moment. In the interest of painting an accurate picture, I fully acknowledge that claims that ballots have been rigged or that electorates have been misled are hardly new or unusual. It was not just the notorious £350,000 claim on the side of the bus. [Interruption.] Million—sorry, not thousand. I have lost count of the number of constituencies I have arrived in and by-elections I have turned up to, where I have been puzzled and amused by the information being offered to the electorate by one side or another. Let me get my mea culpa in first. My party has made some interesting claims. I remember “Vote Labour or the fox gets it” dominating one parliamentary by-election. I remember Labour claiming that the Lib Dems were high on taxes and soft on drugs—that was one of my particular favourites, which I think was from Oldham and Saddleworth. In another by-election, possibly in Leicester, I remember being told that the contest was Mr Strong versus Mr Weak—neither of which candidates appeared on the ballot paper, as I recall. In general elections, the Conservatives have used the notorious double tax whammy and they have asked us, “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?”. Of course, whenever the Liberal Democrats are involved, it is always a two-horse race, whatever the facts might say.
Whether witty, making a reasonable point in a clever way or downright misleading, none of those statements actually broke the law, but Vote Leave did and it has been punished according to the law as it stands. However, the campaign also seriously misled the public. I and many others feel furious about the false promises that were made, but I reluctantly concede that this motley collection of attempts to at best divert and at worst mislead the electorate is, frankly, what electoral politics has always been: an unlovely struggle to achieve sometimes noble ends through too often distinctly tawdry means.
Sometimes, however, cheating does lead to a rerun. In Oldham East and Saddleworth, a by-election was triggered in November 2010 after the sitting MP, elected just months before, was reported guilty of “knowingly making false statements” about an opponent in the general election earlier in the year. After various court proceedings and an appeal, he was reaffirmed as guilty and conceded defeat. I was very sorry, because he was a Labour colleague. Interestingly, the electorate chose not to punish Labour at the ensuing by-election. There are more recent examples. In South Thanet, accusations of electoral fraud have been made that could have declared the election result in 2015 void due to overspending. The trial has been delayed. It is expected to happen in October and I therefore do not think it would be appropriate to say anything more about it.
Those who have signed the petition under consideration today may well ask: why are parliamentary election reports of wrongdoing treated so differently and so much more robustly than those relating to referendums? The answer, as I have hinted, is that electoral law is complicated, with different overlapping pieces of legislation that make it difficult to understand, even for those of us who have been struggling to work out what it means for many years. The important point here is that electoral law is different for national referendums.
In the case of a parliamentary election, there can be a challenge for one of three reasons: if there have been administrative failings that could have led to the wrong result; if a candidate is suspected of being disqualified from standing; or if there have been corrupt or illegal practices, including a candidate spending over the limit. Although there are financial limits on national spending by political parties and third-party campaigners during an election, there is no similar provision for declaring a general election result void because of overspending on the national scale. That makes the rules for referendums and parliamentary elections both complex and varied.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that whether or not we have another referendum on our membership of the European Union, the probable involvement of the Russians indicates that democracy in this country is at risk and that, whatever action we take in this House, we should try to ensure that it is motivated by our desire to defend democracy as well as the rule of law?
Daniel Zeichner
I very much agree with my hon. Friend and near neighbour. There are so many aspects of the matter that could be explored today, some of which I suspect others will choose to pursue.
Returning to the general proposition about how these issues should be dealt with, some look to the Venice Commission for guidance. The commission’s guidelines on constitutional referendums, to which the UK is a signatory, include:
“National rules on both public and private funding of political parties and election campaigns must be applicable to referendum campaigns... As in the case of elections, funding must be transparent, particularly when it comes to campaign accounts. In the event of a failure to abide by the statutory requirements, for instance if the cap on spending is exceeded by a significant margin, the vote must be annulled”.
However, as colleagues may agree, some of that, too, is open to interpretation. It does not give precise advice, and the key point, I am afraid, is that it is not legally binding on its signatories, although we have signed up to the spirit of it and it really ought to guide us in that way.
If one clear conclusion and recommendation comes out of this debate, it should be that the current rules are inconsistent, and certainly not clear to the general public. The law on referendums should be strengthened and made consistent, and I very much hope that the Minister addresses that in his contribution.
There is a further issue that goes beyond the strict application of the law. We do not have a written constitution. We do not have a contract between citizens—or subjects, but that is a debate for another day; let us call them electors—and those entrusted to make law and to govern. We have a very British understanding, and arguably it has probably served us pretty well. If a party is elected on a manifesto that it then contradicts in government by U-turning on key flagship policies, for instance, it can be reduced by the electorate from a party of government to one struggling to make up double figures in its number of MPs, as we have seen in recent times.
It is widely understood that we all respect the outcomes of elections, however disappointed we might be by the result. I speak from some experience, having lost many more elections than I have won. That respect, however, requires that everyone plays broadly by the rules. Despite the examples I somewhat grudgingly gave earlier, most of us accept that most of the time our system works. I am being generous, as many of us, particularly on my side of political spectrum, feel that the levels of hostility from national newspapers owned by people with vested interests have over many years made any contest far from fair, but I persist in thinking that the removal van outside Downing Street remains a powerful symbol of a democracy that still maintains public trust and consent. However—this goes to the heart of the issue raised by the petition—if that trust begins to be put in doubt, and significant numbers no longer feel the system is operating sufficiently fairly, then our democracy is at risk. What we do about that is a political judgment, not a legal judgment.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise for the fact that I and possibly other Members will not be able to stay until the end of this debate; there is another debate about the European Union withdrawal agreement taking place in the Chamber shortly. Does he think it might be helpful to have an independent arbiter to assess the statements made during election campaigns? Politicians of all parties could voluntarily sign up to an understanding that if the UK Statistics Authority, for instance, came down against a particular statement—for example, the £350 million for the NHS—and said that it was untrue, those politicians would never restate that position.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making those points. I quite understand that there is another, more attractive option coming up soon in the other Chamber, and I will be in no way offended if he leaves. On his point about whether there can be an independent arbiter, I am slightly dubious. We are all sufficiently experienced, even in local contests, to know that that would be a difficult thing to set up. I would worry about it. We have all seen examples where all candidates are given an equal space in a booklet, and we have perhaps noted that that is not necessarily the bit that cuts through to the electorate in comparison with reporting from other sources. It is a difficult area, and I have some scepticism about his proposals, although there may be some value in exploring the checking of statistics.
Catherine West
My hon. Friend is generous in giving way to me for a second time. Does he agree that if there is a referendum and the Government of the day say that they will implement whatever the people decide, there should at least be a briefing in the Library of the House of Commons the day after the referendum goes one way or the other so that those of us who are rather surprised by the result know what the Government intend to do?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend for her suggestion. I am just remembering some bleary-eyed politicians trying to recalibrate in the middle of the night, and I am wondering how quickly such a briefing note could be produced accurately. This is a theme of what I have been saying, but I am not sure that one can design legal systems to cope with all these things. In the end, these are political judgments, and we live in a democracy with a fair amount of hurly-burly and a free press, as there should be. We do not want our elections and decisions being bought by money and external states. That is the worry, and that is the difference from some of the problems we have had in the past.
I will make some progress and move on to the separate but related question of article 50 and the ongoing debate as to whether it is rescindable. Lord Kerr was responsible for drafting article 50 as secretary-general to the European Convention in 2002-03 and is frequently quoted on this issue. Last year, he said that article 50 was revocable. That interpretation is supported by Jean-Claude Piris, former legal counsel to the European Council. Marie Demetriou QC, Jessica Simor QC and Tim Ward QC have written a joint legal opinion, which they have sent to the Prime Minister, in which they conclude that article 50 can be withdrawn before 29 March 2019 without the need to seek the agreement of the other EU member states. They also say that if that happened, the UK would retain its membership and privileges. The joint legal opinion notes that the wording in article 50 refers to a decision to notify an intention to withdraw. The QCs argue that an intention is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.
While legal arguments continue on the matter, in political terms the French Government have stated that they would welcome the UK staying in the EU on the current terms. EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Council President Donald Tusk have both said that Brexit is reversible. Lots of people have said lots of things over a period of time. When it comes down to it, I suspect that it is the political will of law- makers that counts here. However, it has been made very clear to us that we are welcome to stay, should we wish.
I have tried to present the petition in an even-handed and fair way, even though everyone already knows where I am going with my speech. In many people’s view, June 2016 was not a great example of a mature democracy working at its best. We know that in our system, referendums are used mainly by Prime Ministers who are in a fix, trapped by divisions within their own party. That was most certainly the case in 2016. Although I have not an ounce of sympathy for David Cameron, he must wonder every day how it came to this. In 2016, the country was hideously divided on the issue, but a decision was made. Two and a half years on, it looks as though we face another difficult decision: to accept whatever deal can finally be arrived at, or not. That is a different question from the one that was posed in 2016. I have argued this afternoon that the law around referendums should be changed to make them consistent with other electoral processes.
Almost 200,000 petitioners and many, many more in the country feel very strongly that the 2016 decision, close as it was, was sullied by actions that have been proven by the Electoral Commission to be unlawful. It may be Parliament’s responsibility or fault that the law is inconsistent, but many of the people we represent feel that the law has not provided adequate recompense for wrongdoings, and that is the force of the petition. That the law was broken is not in doubt, but alongside that, many believe that the campaign was grossly misleading. What was offered by Vote Leave and other leave campaigns is not what is being delivered, and as with parties that renege on their manifestos, the country will not forgive the political system and the politicians who allow this to happen.
The two strands—breaking spending limits and misleading people—are separate issues, but for many people the two are inextricably linked. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who is the grandson of Winston Churchill, told the House in the urgent question on this matter in July that
“one of the great glories of this sadly now diminished country was our electoral and democratic system…I say…that if we are to retain the integrity and the trust of the voting public, the whole damn thing needs to be blown and started all over again.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 228-229.]
The point is very well made. To maintain trust in our democracy, a political response is needed, and that political response is to ensure that justice is done and that we have a people’s vote.
The petition mentions article 10.3 of the Lisbon treaty, which states:
“Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.”
I do not want to leave the EU; I have been explicit on that point. I truly believe that the economic, social and political damage that leaving would do to our country—hitting the most vulnerable the hardest—could be mitigated by remaining in and reforming the EU. Tackling the underlying causes here at home is the way to truly bring back control to the people, not to the bankrollers of election campaigns, but while having the conversation about our future relationship with the European Union, it is worth reflecting again on article 10.3. It states:
“Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.”
That was not what happened in the EU referendum campaign, where electoral rules were broken, a limited franchise excluded those who would be most affected and the question allowed people to vote on what they did not want, but then said nothing about the kind of relationship that should be put in place. As many have said, as we slam the door shouting “We’re leaving”, we are unable to answer the obvious retort, “So where do you think you’re going to?”.
To help our fractured society to move back towards the higher ideals of genuine informed participation in democratic life, it is right to consider the experiences of the past two and a half years since the country went to the polls, as well as the poll itself, and to look at what was promised then and what is being delivered now. It is right to wonder whether we can do better. People have the right to know the price tag before they pay the bill. I am absolutely convinced we can do better. We all know so much more now than we did back in 2016. My solution to the conundrum raised by the 200,000 petitioners is simple. We have an opportunity not to revisit 2016—not to have a rerun, despite the wrongdoing—but to have a new vote on the issue that lies before us. It would be a people’s vote, which would give the people a genuine choice to decide on their future: whether to take the deal, whatever is negotiated, or to reject it and so stay in the European Union.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I want to pay tribute to my long-standing friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), for a sterling introduction to the debate on the petition. I am sure my colleagues will be pleased to know that my contribution will be brief: he said a lot of what I would have said. I also want to thank my 555 constituents in east Bristol who put their names to the petition.
I was one of the 122 MPs, 57 of them Labour, who voted against triggering article 50 in February last year. Every day that goes by vindicates in my mind that I was right to do so. The Government had no plan for Brexit then and have no realistic Brexit plan now. Triggering article 50 began the countdown to the biggest changes our country has faced in peacetime. It was an incredibly serious decision that should not have been taken lightly. Once the Prime Minister’s letter reached President Tusk’s desk in Brussels, it strictly limited the time for negotiations to two years.
The clock is ticking down, and it feels as though it is ticking down ever faster. Even with a coherent Brexit plan in place, it would be a challenging deadline to meet, but the Government were totally and utterly unprepared. They simply had not done their homework, which was painfully obvious when Ministers came before Select Committees such as the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit.
We conducted an inquiry into chemicals regulation post-Brexit. When the Minister came in front of us, it became clear that the Government were only just starting to ask the chemicals industry what Brexit would mean for it. This was after article 50 had been triggered. The conversations that needed to be had with industry, with important sectors and with the much derided experts had barely started, so triggering article 50 was reckless in the extreme. The Prime Minister was not doing it because Brussels insisted we move to a trigger, or in an attempt to unite our divided country after the difficult referendum campaign. She was doing it in a futile attempt to keep her warring Cabinet together. We can all see now how well that has been going.
There is little serious doubt that article 50 is revocable, although I know that was not envisaged when it was drafted. The President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, reiterated last year that no Brexit is still an option for the UK Government, and the author of article 50, Lord Kerr, has said that the UK can still opt to stay in the EU. He said:
“At any stage we can change our minds if we want to, and if we did we know that our partners would actually be very pleased indeed.”
Tom Brake
Does the hon. Lady agree that if the Government want to be transparent and open, they should clearly state whether in their view article 50 is or is not revocable? As far as I am aware, the position they have adopted so far is, “The question is not being posed, so we are not going to answer it.” However, they should, and they should put it on the record.
Kerry McCarthy
I absolutely agree. We are discussing all the options available to us at the moment—from no deal to the option that some of us advocate: that we ought to think better and do all we can to try to stay in the EU. Clearly, looking at the legalities around article 50 is in everyone’s interest so that we know which options are still on the table and which are not.
Today’s debate is not really about the rights and wrongs of triggering article 50, although that is something that the petitioners put forward as part of their call. It is about Vote Leave’s illegal activities during the referendum. Although Vote Leave has been held to account, a fine of £60,000 is pitiful and no deterrent at all when we consider that so much was at stake during the referendum campaign and when the people involved are so wealthy and can easily access the funds needed to pay the fine.
I support the Electoral Commission’s call for greater fines to be levied on those who break the law in such a way and the call for a judge-led inquiry into the conduct of the referendum that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) called for. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) has led the way in investigating the Russian connections of Arron Banks’s Leave.EU campaign. I was glad to be a signatory to a letter he organised to the Metropolitan police and the National Crime Agency urging them to investigate the links between Vote Leave and Leave.EU.
It has been reported that Arron Banks met Russian officials multiple times—on one occasion it was reported that he had met them 11 times before the Brexit vote. There are reports now of an investigation by the National Crime Agency. We are seeing the destruction of our democracy by foreign funding, by fake news and by very wealthy individuals prepared to play fast and loose with our electoral law and get away with it with impunity.
I do not believe that such law breaking alone is reason to rescind article 50, if the intention in calling for article 50 to be revoked is to rerun the 2016 referendum campaign. Nor are the arguments put forward about a lack of information, or indeed the deluge of misleading information when voters made their choice in 2016, a valid reason to call for a rematch. Democracy is never perfect. We can never really second-guess why people voted the way they did. I would prefer not to turn the clock back and talk about rerunning the 2016 referendum, but I very much support the need to properly scrutinise any deal that the Government put forward, possibly with a people’s vote if the Government do not put forward a deal acceptable to Parliament.
Some of us spent the campaign warning that the Brexit process was much more complicated than some would have it. We have gone from being told that Brexit would be
“the easiest deal in human history”,
to the Prime Minister saying,
“it wouldn’t be the end of the world”
if we left with no deal. The promises have evaporated. As I said, I would rather not turn the clock back and look to scrap article 50, but we certainly need to hold to account the people responsible for illegal actions during the referendum campaign. They should not be allowed to get away with it with impunity, but the important thing now is to look at the deal—if it is possible to scrutinise it, given what an absolute mess it is at the moment. It is important to focus on the here and now and make sure that we either get the absolute best deal—a soft Brexit for this country—or we think again, extend or rescind article 50 and go back to the drawing board.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Roger. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for opening today’s debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. With only 200 days until the UK is scheduled to leave the EU, time is clearly of the essence. I commend him for being so generous with his time and taking interventions today. We may have suffered in today’s debate because of the competing EU debate that is about to begin in the main Chamber. However, the Members who have spoken have covered just about every aspect that is salient to the issue. I am also grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comprehensive presentation; there is much on which I agree with him. I am particularly grateful for his reminding us that the referendum was advisory and not legally binding. However, many of the decisions before us will be about political judgment.
Members have raised the point that adequate legal advice on whether article 50 can be rescinded would be extremely useful, especially in relation to future decisions that will have to be made. We will need to wait for the decision of the inner house of the Court of Session to see whether it tells us that.
We can be in no doubt that there have been illegal activities by Vote Leave. The Electoral Commission has determined that the electoral rules have been broken, and both Vote Leave and BeLeave have been fined and referred to the police. I do not wish to pontificate about what may or may not happen with regard to ongoing police investigations; that is for them to determine, and due process will take place. It is enough to acknowledge that it is right that the matter has been referred to the police. We must let the investigation take its due course.
I will, however, comment on how inadequate the powers of the Electoral Commission appear to be in relation to this matter. If we are to have confidence in the integrity, and outcome, of referendums and elections, transparency in the process is essential. It is particularly disappointing that Vote Leave displayed an arrogant and unco-operative stance, forcing the Electoral Commission to use its legal powers to compel it to provide evidence. It was bad enough that that attitude demonstrated that Vote Leave thought it was above the law, but that was compounded by the paltry level of fines imposed, totalling £61,000 against a multi-million pound campaign, which can be dismissed as the cost of doing business—almost with impunity.
With parliamentary constituencies, results can be declared void as a result of overspending by successful candidates but no such provision exists for overturning the referendum result; the only provision for challenging it was by judicial review within six weeks of the result. That is clearly unsatisfactory, given that the Electoral Commission took almost 13 months to publish its report into the lead Vote Leave campaign funding and spending, although that is in no way a criticism of the Electoral Commission. The period needs to be significantly longer in future referendums, and could be further aided by a more transparent, real-time declaration of expenses and donations. That needs serious consideration by Ministers.
Vote Leave was not alone in being fined by the Electoral Commission; Leave.EU was also fined a total of £70,000 in May this year, and offences were also referred to the police. Once again, that highlighted the inadequacy of the range of fines available to the Electoral Commission. It would be fair to point out that several participants on the remain side of the referendum have also been fined, but in each case at significantly lower levels and, more significantly, without any individuals being referred to the police.
All that adds to the perception that the existing electoral laws are not fit for purpose. There has been talk of
“respecting the result of the referendum”,
to use the phrase in the Government’s response to the petitioners, but what exactly does that mean? In Scotland—a nation that we were constantly assured in the 2014 referendum was an equal partner in the Union—people voted overwhelmingly to remain, by 62% to 38%. Yet Scotland is being dragged out of the EU against our wishes—the peril of being part of an incorporating Union with a much larger partner. Clearly that example indicates that respecting the result of the referendum can be interpreted differently by different members of the UK.
What about respecting the process of the referendum to achieve a fair result? Surely that is more important. If the result was not fair, should it be respected? I argue that it should not be, and many reasons support that position—most importantly what will happen in future contests if campaigners can get away with breaking the rules. There must be full transparency to hold any of those who seek to influence or undermine our democracy to account.
That brings me to another dimension of the debate: dark money. BBC Spotlight Northern Ireland has revealed that the former vice chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland, now chair of the Constitutional Research Council, Richard Cook, was behind the Democratic Unionist party’s £435,000 donation during the EU referendum, and, to use BBC Spotlight Northern Ireland’s words, has
“a trail of involvement in illegal activity and foreign money”.
Donation rules in Northern Ireland mean that details about donations made before July 2017 remain hidden. It is worth noting that, in response to the BBC, the Electoral Commission continues to urge the UK Government to introduce legislation enabling the publishing of information on donations from January 2014. We need a full debate on the Scottish Conservative dark money, as we have seen only the tip of the dodgy donations iceberg. The Scottish National party has serious concerns regarding the dark money handled by the Scottish Tories in the 2016 referendum. We have called repeatedly on the Scottish Conservatives and the Prime Minister to reveal the full details of the transactions between the DUP and the Scottish Tory-linked CRC. They continue to refuse to do so. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on why the original source of that dark money is being kept a secret.
Our electoral laws must not be treated as an optional extra by campaigns. The £250 to £20,000 fines available to the Electoral Commission are simply inadequate. Fines should be unlimited or, at the very least, proportionate to the spending ability of the party or campaign group involved. We have to ask ourselves what level of electoral rule-breaking should invalidate this or any future referendum. The answer is not simple.
Given what we have heard, can we have confidence that the outcome of the EU referendum was secure? Overspending, the deliberate co-ordination of expenditure, dark money, possible foreign interference, fake news and potential misuse of online data, all of which played a part in the EU referendum and leave an unpalatable taste in the mouth, will lead many members of the public to conclude that the referendum was won by cheating. Much needs to be addressed to ensure public confidence in our democracy. Pressing on regardless fails to ensure that. Surely now is the time to stop the process of national self-harm and remain within the EU. Instead, we should concentrate on making our democratic systems fit for purpose in the modern digital age.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to be able to speak for the Opposition with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for the way he opened the debate. At a time when much of the debate in this place on this issue lets us down, I thought he made a very balanced, informed and at times entertaining contribution, for which I am grateful.
Some 671 of my constituents signed the petition, many of whom probably campaigned alongside me to remain in the European Union. I have been in correspondence with a number of them on this issue. I understand the anger and frustration that they feel about cheating in the referendum—feelings that have been worsened by the deepening chaos of the Government’s handling of the negotiations and the growing risk of a disastrous no-deal Brexit. That, of course, has been anticipated with some excitement by the extremists of the European Research Group, although I note, as others may have, that the Secretary of State for International Trade confessed this morning in an article in The Times that he cannot promise that life will be “rosy” after Brexit—something of a contrast with the pledges made during the referendum.
Labour backed remain, and I campaigned relentlessly to stay in the European Union, but the majority did not agree. It was a painfully close vote, but it was a decision to leave. However, the closeness of the vote indicates that it was not a decision to rupture our relationship with the EU or to trash our economy. Had the Prime Minister said in July 2016, “We recognise the country is divided. We will leave, but remain close—staying in a customs union, staying close to the single market, and remaining members of the agencies and programmes we have built together over 45 years,” she would have had an overwhelming majority in this House, united the country so bitterly divided by David Cameron’s ill-conceived referendum, and avoided some of the anger and frustration behind today’s petition.
Instead, the Prime Minister set red line after red line—putting the interests of her warring party before those of the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) pointed out in relation to article 50. Incidentally, my hon. Friend was also right to highlight the tragedy of the Prime Minister now setting something better than the end of the world as the benchmark for her negotiations with the EU27.
As other hon. Members have said, as we speak a general debate has just started in the House on legislating for the withdrawal agreement, which will in itself unpick parts of the Bill that we spent a year debating and now forms the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Some 27 months after the referendum, and one month before the planned deadline for a deal—although that deadline is slipping—we are still no closer to knowing whether there will be a withdrawal agreement or, if there is, what will be in it.
Chequers seemed to mark a change of policy from the Prime Minister—too little, too late, but at least a direction. Yet barely a week later, the Government whipped intensively to defeat an amendment to the Trade Bill that endorsed the Chequers plan, and embraced European Research Group amendments to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill that were designed to torpedo it. It is clear that Chequers has no support in the House, in Brussels or even in the country. The most important negotiations this country has seen since the second world war are being led by the most dysfunctional Government any of us can remember.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Who the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor gives way to is entirely up to him, and it is not up to the Chair to seek to intervene in that process. However, as a general rule the Chair deprecates hon. Members choosing to come into the Chamber at or near the end of a debate.
Wera Hobhouse
Thank you, Sir Roger. I fully accept your guidance. I had another engagement that I could not get out of. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most reckless thing was the premature triggering of article 50? That is why I welcome this petition.
Paul Blomfield
I take your point, Sir Roger. I think every aspect of the Government’s handling of the negotiations and the post-referendum process has been reckless, so I sympathise with the petitioners’ frustration. I now turn to the subject of the petition.
The Electoral Commission’s serious findings about Vote Leave have to be and are being fully investigated by the police. All those who are running the organisation or are associated with it at its heart should co-operate fully with the inquiry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge pointed out, they did not do so during the Electoral Commission’s investigation. I hope the Minister agrees that sitting and former Ministers who worked with Vote Leave during the referendum campaign must co-operate fully with the police investigation, and that their adherence with the ministerial code during their time working with Vote Leave should be the subject of a full investigation. I look forward to hearing his comments on those points.
It is vital that the investigation is allowed to take its course, and there must be the possibility of criminal charges. Trust in politics is low—a number of hon. Members made the point that fake news and disinformation pose a very real threat to our democracy—so we cannot brush aside dishonesty in our political system.
Article 50 has been triggered, beginning the two-year process of our withdrawal—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge spent some time talking about that. I recognise that there is discussion around the question, but I accept the view that, legally, it could be revoked if there were political consensus that it should be. However, we cannot revoke it on the basis of this petition. It is difficult to know exactly what influenced voters. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) said—I think I am quoting him rightly—that the referendum was won by cheating. Clearly there was cheating, but it is not clear that the referendum was won by it. We cannot be certain, and we cannot credibly say that overspending in the region of half a million pounds definitely swung the result one way or the other.
We need tough sanctions on those who break the law. The Electoral Commission is right to seek much larger fines and much greater retribution against those who bring our democratic system into disrepute, and there must be criminal prosecutions where appropriate. I understand why the petitioners feel it is nonsense—the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk made this point—that the result should stand if there has been cheating. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge cited the example of the parliamentary election of Oldham East and Saddleworth that was overturned, but he also made the point that we have to be guided by the law. Although the law provides for that option in relation to parliamentary elections, it does not provide for it in relation to referendums. There is a case for having a much wider inquiry, but as it stands the case for overturning the referendum has not been made.
Far from strengthening our democracy, disregarding the vote simply on the basis of this issue risks further undermining trust in our political system. That is why the Opposition’s focus is on pressing the Government to reach out to the majority in the country, not the minority in their party, and to reach a deal in the country’s interest. The Opposition have ruled nothing out, but our focus is on ensuring that the divisions in the Conservative party do not lead us to crash out of the European Union without a deal in the autumn. If the deal does not meet our six tests on co-operation, the economy, migration, rights and protections, national security and the interests of the regions and nations, we will vote it down. The Prime Minister said she accepts those tests, but time is running out for her to meet them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Chris Heaton-Harris)
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as ever, Sir Roger. Actually, I think this is the first time I have served under your chairmanship as a Minister. I hope I do not somehow incur the wrath that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) faced. I will stay completely in order throughout the debate.
I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. He said that he did so in an “even-handed” way—actually, he did, and he should be congratulated on that. I guess I should caveat that by saying that it was relatively even-handed, but it was a very good job well done, and I congratulate him on representing the views of the people who signed the petition.
I thank all hon. Members who participated in the debate. There is a decent number of them here, considering the competition in the main Chamber. There were interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake)—it is a shame he has left, because I was fascinated by his idea of an independent arbiter to stop incorrect statements. I thought it was odd for a Lib Dem politician to attempt to silence his own party’s election machine, but so be it.
There were also interventions from the hon. Members for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West). In fact, she and I debated during the European referendum campaign in a room not too far from here. I would like to think that, had she been here now, she would at least agree that our debate was fairly well educated—certainly, the people in the audience were, and they informed the debate very well indeed—and very balanced. Good debates did happen during the referendum campaign, and I am sure many hon. Members in this Chamber participated in them on either side of the argument.
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), and I recognise her long-standing and very principled position on the matter of leaving the European Union. She is a passionate pro-European, and I respect her for that completely. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I debated with lots of people in a similar position, and I never fell out with them once because I completely understood that they were sticking to principled positions. I just happened to disagree with their position. I very much welcome what she said about wishing to get a good deal for the country and scrutinising the deal when it comes before the House. I thank her for those words.
I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for his contribution. He made some interesting points, which were probably more for Cabinet Office Ministers than for the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Department for Exiting the European Union, but I will pass them on. The hon. Member for Cambridge made similar points about the rules of referendums. I will ensure that those points are passed on so that he can be assured that they will be taken into account in any future debate on the rules of referendums.
I thank the official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). I have known him for a long time—alas, slightly too long, really. I disagree with him too on much of what he said, but I know that he speaks from a principled position. He is passionate about this subject and I respect him for that.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments about how Chequers has moved the negotiations and this debate on. It will be interesting to see where his party—the Opposition—gets to in its debate on such matters. I tend to think that the majority of his constituents and mine are in a slightly different place from us. No matter how they voted, they just want this noisy debate to end and they want us to get on with the very detailed job of leaving the European Union in March next year.
A great deal of the passion that people feel about the referendum result was expressed by the hon. Member for Cambridge. I remember it distinctly. In many constituencies—the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) might recall this in his own—“pencilgate” caused a problem during the referendum. People were worried about marking their cross with a pencil because they thought that the Government might change how they voted. There was passion on both sides of the argument, and it would be foolish of us to ignore that passion.
I also thank all those who signed the petition. It was a good-sized petition, with 200,000 signatures, including nearly 300 people in my own constituency of Daventry. The petition calls for article 50 to be revoked if any electoral laws are found to have been broken during the 2016 referendum. It highlights two issues: the conduct of the referendum, and the revocation of our notice to withdraw from the European Union under article 50. I shall deal with each in turn.
I emphasise first that it is not acceptable for any organisation to breach electoral procedures, and it is regrettable that fines have been levied on multiple groups on both sides of the referendum campaign. Electoral law must be followed, and its breaches must be dealt with decisively. The Electoral Commission’s use of its sanctioning powers shows that it is doing that vital job. However, breaches did happen on both sides, I guess. A number of pro-remain organisations have also already been fined by the Electoral Commission for breaking referendum law, including the Liberal Democrats, Open Britain, Best for Our Future and a host of others. I understand, though, that that is not the nature of the petition.
The issue is rightly and effectively being dealt with through our legal system. It is being scrutinised through ongoing legal processes, even including challenges to the findings of the Electoral Commission. The police must consider whether there has been any breach of criminal law. There must be due process and a fair hearing, and an important constitutional principle is that politicians do not interfere with police investigations.
That said, the Government will be considering the wider implications of the issue, as well as recent reports on Government policy on referendums and elections. We will carefully review the Electoral Commission’s report on digital campaigning, the Information Commissioner’s recommendations on the use of data in politics and the results of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry into fake news, and we will take necessary action to strengthen our democracy further.
There is, however, no question that the UK Government will revoke our notification under article 50. Our clear policy is that we will not revoke article 50. The people of the United Kingdom gave a clear instruction, and the Government are committed to seeing that through. We will leave the European Union on 29 March next year.
Parliament voted overwhelmingly to put the question of the UK’s membership of the European Union to the British electorate. The simple question that was put to members of the public on 23 June 2016 asked:
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
The result of the referendum was therefore a clear answer to a clear question, giving a clear directive to Government to withdraw from the European Union, which we respected through our notification under article 50.
The result reflected not only campaigning but considerable and prolonged debate, at national and parliamentary level, underpinned by a commitment from all major political parties to respect the outcome of the vote. Almost three quarters of the electorate took part in the referendum, resulting in 17,410,742 people voting to leave the European Union and 16,141,241 voting to remain. That is the largest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history. Parliament then overwhelmingly confirmed that result by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. Furthermore, at the last general election more than 80% of the public voted for parties committed to respecting the leave result.
The Government respect the views and wishes of the more than 198,000 people who signed the petition, but the instruction received from the wider public and their elected Parliament is one that cannot be ignored. The Government are clear that the British people have voted to leave the European Union and therefore that is what we shall do. The former Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), noted early last year that
“the electorate voted for a Government to give them a referendum. Parliament voted to hold the referendum, the people voted in that referendum, and we are now honouring the result of that referendum, as we said we would.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 818.]
The Government have been and continue to be committed to delivering on the instruction given to us by the British people, working to overcome the challenges and to seize the opportunities that it brings to deliver an outcome that betters the lives of British people—whether they voted to leave or to remain. The British people must be able to trust in their Government both to effect their will and to deliver the best outcome for them. As the Prime Minister has said:
“This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.”
In upholding the directive to withdraw from the European Union, that is what the Government have done and will continue to do. We recognise that to do otherwise would be to undermine the decision of the British people, and that would be to disrespect the powerful democratic values of this country, this Government and this Parliament. The Government’s position remains clear: our notice under article 50 will not be withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank all Members who made contributions today. It has been a civilised debate.
The Minister reflected that the turnout in the Chamber was a decent one, but I have to say that I expected rather more Members—in fact, I expected a rank of Vote Leave supporters on the Government Benches to explain and defend their actions. I quite understand why they are not present: their actions were indefensible. What a pity that they are not here to defend themselves. I suspect that many of the petitioners will be profoundly disappointed—not by the number who are here, but by the number who are not, in particular on the Vote Leave side.
The Minister cannot, however, be held responsible for everything that happens in life. I shall reflect on some points in his response. I was mildly encouraged that the Government plan to look at the role of data and at strengthening the laws around referendums. Major lessons can be learned from all that went on. I was slightly disappointed that he did not take the opportunity to endorse the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) of a judge-led inquiry into what went on, which might help us, but perhaps that is for another day.
In conclusion, the Government again made a strong statement that the issue will not be revisited, but I reflect gently on the strong statements made by the Prime Minister in the early months of 2017 that there was no chance of a general election. Perhaps she should again go for a walking holiday in Wales and return to give the country what it needs to get us off the hook of the crisis by delivering a people’s vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 223729 relating to rescinding Article 50 if the Vote Leave campaign broke electoral laws.
Written Statements
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Government Chemist Review 2017
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)
The 21st annual review of the Government Chemist has been received. The review will be placed in the Libraries of the House plus those of the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland. The review will also be laid before the Scottish Parliament.
The Government Chemist is the referee analyst named in Acts of Parliament. The Government Chemist’s team carry out analysis in high-profile or legally disputed cases. A diverse range of referee analysis work was carried out during 2017, including measurement disputes relating to alfatoxins, nitrofuran contamination, authenticity, protein allergens and sulphites.
[HCWS946]
Boundary Commissions
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
I have today laid before each House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, copies of the reports setting out recommendations for new constituency boundaries by the Boundary Commission for England and the Boundary Commission for Wales.
Under the same provisions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has today laid before each House a copy of the report by the Boundary Commission for Scotland, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has today laid before each House a copy of the report by the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland.
In 2016, the Boundary Commissions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland began the boundary review. The independent and impartial Boundary Commissions have been conducting the boundary review as laid out in legislation passed by Parliament which provides for more equal seats and reduces the number of constituencies from 650 to 600, with equally sized constituencies based on up to date demographic data.
My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Wales and I have written today to all Members of this House representing existing constituencies in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, advising them on the laying of the reports. The reports will be published on www.gov.uk. The Boundary Commissions will also be publishing their reports on their websites.
In accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, the adoption of the reports will require approval of both Houses.
[HCWS947]
Grand Committee
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]
Monday 10th September 2018
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019 View all Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 113-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF) - (6 Sep 2018)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume again after 10 minutes.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, before we start today’s proceedings I will take the opportunity to correct something that I said last Wednesday in response to Amendment 16. I said that Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires a justice of the peace to be satisfied that material on the premises is likely to be of substantial value before authorising a production order. In fact, Section 8 concerns the authorisation of a search warrant, not a production order. A production order is made under Schedule 1 to the Act. None the less, there is still reference to a judge needing to be satisfied that the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation, whether by itself or with other material, before issuing a production order. I apologise for that.
Clause 5: Contents of order
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) the mechanism for enforcement.”
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment 22 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. We are both interested in how orders are to be enforced. I have to say that I think both amendments are slightly circular. That might mean that they are elliptical—I am not sure. However, we are probing at this stage; I hope that the Minister will take that point.
There are obvious difficulties with enforcement in respect of data held by an entity that is not in the UK and which does not have a base or assets in the UK. We are told in Clause 6(4)(a) that the provisions apply regardless of where the data is stored. I do not know whether “extraterritorially” in the sense of outside the earth, as distinct from in another country, applies here. I simply do not understand how the technology works.
It seems to me that the enforcement will have two aspects: a sanction for non-compliance and ensuring the actual production of the data. So my first question is: will the mechanism for enforcement be in the co-operation arrangement and, generally, how are we to expect the issues that I have raised to be dealt with? I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I shall speak to the amendment in my name, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, has in effect the same objective as the amendment which she has just spoken to and moved. The purpose of our amendment is likewise to find out to what extent and by what means overseas production orders can and will be enforced where there is a bilateral or wider international agreement for an overseas production order made by a court in this country and one made in another country and served on a provider in the UK.
In Committee last Wednesday the Government stated that the reference at Second Reading that,
“UK-based providers will not be compelled to comply with overseas orders”,—[Official Report, 11/7/18; col. 929.]
meant that while,
“UK companies are not compelled by UK law”,
to comply with a production order,
“they may be compelled by the other jurisdiction … depending on the country in question”.—[Official Report, 5/9/18; col. GC 143.]
Bearing in mind that considerable progress appears to have already been made towards concluding a bilateral agreement on overseas production orders with the United States in line with the Bill, will an overseas production order made by our courts in respect of an American-based service provider be enforceable—and, if so, how, by whom and with what sanctions available if there is non-compliance?
Likewise, in the light of the Minister’s comment last Wednesday that UK companies might be compelled by the other jurisdiction to comply with their production order, how will such an order made by an American court in respect of a British-based service provider be enforceable, by whom and with what sanctions available if there is non-compliance? In addition, what do the Government consider would be the basis of appropriate and acceptable enforcement arrangements in both directions for any other countries with whom we might conclude bilateral arrangements in respect of production orders under the Bill?
Last Wednesday in Committee, the Government said that,
“it is reasonable to expect that some form of dispute resolution mechanism would be in place to help determine any differences in the event that there is a dispute over compliance with an order”.—[Official Report, 5/9/18; col. GC 141.]
That statement was, of course, in line with what the Government had said in the Minister’s letter of 20 July following Second Reading. That letter referred to the Government expecting any bilateral agreement to include a mechanism for escalating any dispute over compliance.
But should the letter not have said that the Government “will” require a bilateral agreement to include such processes and procedures, rather than just that they expect that it will? Would the decision of such a dispute resolution mechanism be legally binding? If so, on whom? If not, what would happen if the dispute resolution mechanism failed to resolve the dispute? As I understand it, some service providers have welcomed the Bill because it will provide them with cover when making available electronic data, if done under the Bill’s provisions, from other potential legal proceedings. If that is the case, would that legal protection be provided by the Bill if it was not capable of being legally enforced in one or both directions?
What kind of issues in dispute could be addressed through the suggested dispute resolution procedure mechanism? Who would mediate or arbitrate if such a mechanism was in place? Would there be legal representation? How would the mechanism be activated and by whom? Who would pay the costs? Would the dispute procedure have to reach a conclusion or decision within a fixed maximum timescale? Would the dispute resolution mechanism for any bilateral agreement on production orders with the United States be the same in the United States and the UK, working to the same standard and principles and applying or not applying the same sanctions? If there is to be any enforcement by the courts, through which court would an overseas production order made in this country be enforceable, and through which court would an overseas production order made in the US or another country in respect of a British service provider be enforceable? After at least two years of discussion with the United States on the proposed agreement, the Government must have some specific answers to these questions.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank both noble Lords for their points. As they said, overseas production orders will be used where an international co-operation arrangement exists and, as such, orders will be used in an environment where they are readily complied with or where there is confidence that such orders will be complied with.
As I explained when the Bill was read for a second time, the Bill provides an alternative route to accessing evidence to the existing mutual legal assistance channels. However, those channels will still be available. As such, if there is any doubt about compliance, appropriate officers may well opt to seek the evidence required via that existing route to ensure that compliance can be effected through another country’s own domestic sanctions.
Amending this provision to include the means by which an order could be enforced would be a departure from legislation in relation to existing production orders. It goes without saying that non-compliance of an order is a breach of such an order. To answer one of the noble Lord’s questions, the very nature of this being a Crown Court order is that it attracts contempt of court proceedings if there is non-compliance—which will be dealt with by way of court rules.
Failure to comply with an overseas production order made by an English judge will carry the same consequences as failure to comply with a domestic production order—namely, the person will become liable to punishment for contempt of court in the same way as if an order of the Crown Court had been breached. Specifying on the face of the order the means by which contempt proceedings will be brought will not change the legal position.
On the point made by noble Lords about enforcement. I accept that the Bill does not provide an enforcement mechanism in respect of Clause 13(1), which prohibits a person from concealing, destroying, altering or disposing of the data, or disclosing the application to anyone else once they are given notice of the application. This is currently the case with domestic orders made under Schedule 1 to PACE. As I mentioned, these orders can be made only where the relevant international arrangement exists. Orders will be applied for and used in an environment where they are readily complied with and where there is confidence that such orders will be complied with.
In reality, enforcement mechanisms for such requirements are unlikely to be needed—again, this reflects the domestic position. I say this because, where there is a risk that a person on whom an order is served might tip off a subject of interest or destroy evidence, a search warrant is likely to be used or the evidence would not be sought at all. Therefore, where there is a risk of concealing, destroying, disposing of or altering the data, an overseas production order will not be an appropriate method of obtaining that information. As I said, MLA will still be available and, where there is doubt about compliance with an overseas production order, appropriate officers may well opt to seek the evidence required via the MLA route to ensure that the information can be obtained by other means.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether the enforcement mechanism would be in the co-operation agreement. We envisage that the co-operation arrangements will require obstacles to compliance to be removed, but the requirement to comply with an order will be a matter for the law of the jurisdiction in which it is made. We have provided for enforcement orders in the Bill via the contempt of court mechanism.
The noble Lord also asked about dispute resolution. Any mechanism for dispute resolution will be subject to negotiation with any country with which we wish to enter into an agreement. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to speculate on the terms of such dispute resolution mechanisms—although I can of course discuss this further with noble Lords ahead of Report. With those explanations, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Rosser
Perhaps I may ask for clarification. As I understand from what the noble Baroness said— I may well have misunderstood it—if an overseas production order made in this country had to be enforced, it would be on the basis of contempt of court. That would be enforced against a provider in America if we were talking about the agreement with the States. How would contempt of court proceedings against a court decision in this country work in practice in relation to a provider in the United States who did not comply?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think it would be made under Schedule 1 of PACE—no, I am wrong. The answer is winging its way to me. While I am waiting, clearly if there was any doubt about that—
Lord Rosser
In the other direction, would an order made in an American court against a British provider that is not complied with lead to contempt proceedings in a United States court, and how would that court enforce it against a British provider?
Lord Paddick (LD)
While we are waiting, am I right in thinking that in the recent Facebook case it was not that the service provider did not want to provide the information that would be of use to UK law enforcement but that domestic law in America did not allow it to provide that information, and that in the overwhelming majority of cases to which this legislation would apply we anticipate that the service provider would be more than keen to provide the data, provided it can be done lawfully, and that this mechanism provides the lawful means of doing that?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think the noble Lord is probably quite right. It goes back to what I was saying at the beginning of my response. If there were doubts about compliance, or that began to become apparent, MLA would be the process that we would revert to if this was not forthcoming. Ditto, the American side would probably institute the MLA process to ensure compliance.
Lord Rosser
On the point the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made, does it stand up that the service provider—he spoke about the situation in America, I think—would be protected from any other legal action if it provided the data under a law that it did not have to comply with?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The current Facebook case is a good case in point. There is no requirement for it to provide the information because of its terms, conditions and processes. I am sure that this would ensure that it had to comply with the process, because we are introducing this agreement with the US which places an obligation on CSPs to comply—whereas at this point in time they do not have to.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, perhaps when I read all this I will understand it a little better than I have while listening to it. It is not how I had approached the Bill. As it has been described, there is an element of optionality which I had not expected.
We will want to ask our colleagues who practise in this area to comment on how contempt of court is dealt with. I have just turned up the notes made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who had a look at the Bill before Second Reading. He wrote—I assume this is rhetorical—“Is contempt of court a realistic and effective sanction in respect of international bodies?” Of course we will discuss this, as the Minister said, before Report. This is certainly going to be a matter on which we will want to put down another amendment for Report in order to tidy up, as far as we can, in the Bill, or to get on the record in Hansard, the quite unusual situation which we are discussing.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not usually intervene on noble Lords but, if I may, the noble Baroness is absolutely correct when she talks about optionality. There is now optionality. There is MLA, which by its very nature is a longer process—and this is the option for a much speedier access to data requirement.
Baroness Hamwee
Indeed it is optional, but one expects there to be an effective sanction. In this context, contempt of court really amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist, with probably nothing much to follow.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
But of course—I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness again—there is also reputational damage, as for example with Facebook.
Baroness Hamwee
Yes, I take that point. I had wondered whether I should have apologised at the beginning of this debate that I had so little to say, in comparison with the stacks of paper which officials behind the Minister have in front of them. However, perhaps we have given this more of an airing than I expected. I look forward to discussing it further and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Clause 6(4)(c) provides that the requirements in the Bill have effect,
“in spite of any restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed)”.
This amendment seeks to understand what the impact is of that. I am not of course impugning what the Minister said about compliance with human rights and so on, but can we be sure, given that exception, about how that will fit in with legal and human rights protections? What if there is a clash with the local laws or the terms of the co-operation agreement? Given our previous discussion, I wonder whether, if there were to be such a restriction, this route would be not taken at all. Specifically, does this subsection allow for Clause 3, which is about excepted data, to be overridden? That would be concerning. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment, which gives me the opportunity to set out to the Committee the intention of Clause 6(4)(c). First, let me stress that the aim of an overseas production order is to provide law enforcement officers and prosecutors with the ability to apply to the court to acquire electronic data that can be used in proceedings or an investigation into serious crime. The effects of such an order are outlined in Clause 6.
The Government accept that a company may have obligations to the customers who use its services. The effect of subsection (4)(c) is to make it clear that, in spite of those obligations or any that a company may owe to its shareholders, for example, it is obliged to comply with the requirement to give effect to an overseas production order. Of course, there will be duties on those who are served an order to adhere to data protection obligations, but the Government are satisfied that the rights and duties that would be imposed by the provisions of the Bill are compliant with data protection legislation. On receipt of any evidence, for example, the appropriate officer would be required to handle such data in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018—as they would any other data, including that sought under an existing production order issued under PACE for data held in the UK for the purpose of investigating or prosecuting serious crime.
Any international arrangement that is concluded will be premised on a requirement that the two contracting countries will make compliance possible. The purpose of this clause is therefore to ensure that the recipients of a disclosure can comply with it even where there is conflict in the law of the UK. For example, where the recipient owes a duty of confidence in respect of a third party, Clause 6(4)(c) will allow the recipient to produce the data without breeching that duty. This approach reflects the domestic framework used for making and granting production orders under Schedule 5 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and Section 348(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act. A judge cannot issue an overseas production order unless it meets the criteria set out in the Bill. The provision in Clause 6(4) of the Bill is only about ensuring that a lawful order has absolute effect. It does not provide that the courts can sidestep other statutory provisions such as the Data Protection Act 2018 when making an overseas production order.
The noble Baroness asked about safeguards. The Bill contains robust safeguards governing the application and issuing of an overseas production order. The judge must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the data sought is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation, and that it would be in the public interest for this data to be produced before an order is granted. The judge is also required to exercise the power to consider and grant orders compatible with human rights obligations, including privacy.
These orders are intended to be used where law enforcement officers and prosecutors are investigating terrorism or have reasonable grounds to believe that an indictable offence has been committed, or proceedings in respect of an offence have been instituted. The Bill does not provide access to any data that is not already available through mutual legal assistance. It simply ensures that the data can be obtained more quickly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about clashes with local laws. The point of an agreement is that an international arrangement removes those barriers to compliance, as I have already said, so it will be a prerequisite for a country to ensure that compliance is possible. The noble Baroness also asked whether this paragraph allows for Clause 3 on “excepted data” to be set aside. Clause 6(4)(c) does provide that an overseas production order made by the court has effect in spite of any restrictions. A court will not make an order in respect of excepted data as the Bill provides that it cannot—so Clause 6(4)(c) does not allow for orders to be made in respect of excepted data.
The noble Baroness looks quite confused, but I hope that I have satisfied her and persuaded her that her amendment can be withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this is another occasion when I shall have to read the reply carefully. But, with regard to the relationship between Clause 6(4)(c) and Clause 3, can I be clear that the Minister said that it does not allow for Clause 3 provisions to be set aside? I see the Minister is nodding. I thank her for that and, as I said, I will read the response. I beg leave, for the moment, to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my Amendments 25, 26, 28 and 35 are also in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has given notice that he intends to oppose Clause 7 standing part of the Bill. I assume that that is to probe the operation of the clause. I am sure he takes the view that I do—that one would not want to accept that these orders can be made without the possibility of variation, revocation or, in the most general sense, appeal.
On Amendment 24, I am ready to be told that it is not necessary to spell out that revocation or variation can be,
“in whole or in part”.
I realise that a part-revocation is probably a variation. We also find the non-disclosure requirements rather troublesome. Amendment 25 seeks to probe the procedure for opposing the non-disclosure requirements. Amendment 26 is part of the same question about how you appeal against them.
Clause 8 provides for non-disclosure of the existence of an order, as distinct from non-disclosure of its contents. There is something rather concerning about not being able to say that an order is in existence. If a data subject asks the internet service provider, it cannot even say, “We will have to refer to the judge”—or can it? I am not sure. The sanction here, presumably, would be contempt of court. I have already referred to whether that is an effective sanction in the case of an overseas or international body. I was reminded of super-injunctions when I read this. They do not have the greatest reputation. Presumably the Minister will remind us that disclosing the existence of an order to a subject could hamper the work of law enforcement or security. All my instincts are that somebody who is affected by an order should know about it. Perhaps the Minister could take this opportunity to explain the operation of it.
Amendment 35 is another probing amendment, about how one appeals, in this case against Clause 13. But my major concerns are around Clause 8. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, I have tabled a Clause 7 stand part debate, which is intended to provide an opportunity for the Government to explain in a bit more detail why this clause is deemed necessary and how and in what circumstances it is intended to operate. In what kinds of circumstances do the Government envisage it being necessary to vary or revoke an overseas production order, and how many times has that happened in respect of domestic production orders, compared to the number of such domestic orders issued? Does the varying or revoking referred to in Clause 7 apply to overseas production orders made in this country or to such orders made in the country with which we have a bilateral agreement and applying to British service providers—or, indeed, does it apply to both? In what circumstances would the Secretary of State, rather than the appropriate officer who applied for the order or any person affected by the order, be likely to seek to vary or revoke an overseas production order?
Will the application to vary or revoke be heard by the judge who made the original order, and what information, or indeed anything else, will be required from an applicant seeking to vary or revoke an overseas production order before court time is granted to hear their application? What will be the test, if any, in terms of the extent or otherwise of a proposed variation being sought before it can be considered or granted? Does the reference in Clause 7 to the requirements in Section 4(2) to (6) continuing to be fulfilled, or being fulfilled, apply to the variation that is being sought or to the original overseas production order as altered by the variation?
Once an overseas production order has been served, the recipient has, I believe, as a standard, seven days to act on it. Presumably that means that an application to vary or revoke by the recipient as a person affected by the order has to be made within those seven days. Is that in fact the case? If it is, is it not a very short period of time, particularly if it is also envisaged that a judge will have to deal with any application to vary or revoke within that seven-day period, or will a judge be able to extend the period already laid down for the electronic data specified in an overseas production order to be produced if an application to vary or revoke has been made?
Finally, what will be the maximum period of time within which applications to vary or revoke must be determined by a judge, and who will be given notice of an application to vary or revoke an overseas production order, and in what circumstances, and thus have the opportunity to support or contest the application?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their points. I will give them a very long answer because a full explanation is being sought. I shall speak first to Clause 7 standing part of the Bill and then cover the individual amendments.
The purpose of Clause 7 is to allow an appropriate officer who applied for the order, or an equivalent officer, any person affected by the order, the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate the ability to apply to a judge to vary or revoke an overseas production order. The clause broadly reflects the existing domestic framework; for example, a production order made under the PACE Act 1984 does not contain provision about applications that can be made to vary or revoke a production order. However, court rules allow for the respondent of an order, or any person affected by it, to apply for the order to be varied or discharged. In addition, a judge’s decision to make a domestic production order may be challenged by way of judicial review.
Inclusion of this clause is an important safeguard to ensure that anyone affected by an order has an opportunity to challenge it and its contents, especially because appeal rights as such do not exist in respect of production orders. The intention behind Clause 7 was to make clear the existence of the power to vary or revoke an overseas production order and the circumstances under which that power might be used, and to set out the categories of persons who might apply for such variations or revocations. These persons include the person subject to the order, who is therefore required to produce the data sought, the person who applied for the order and anybody else who might be affected by it; for example, the person to whom any personal data sought relates. For example, where notice is given, an innocent third party who was communicating with the suspect over email may not want certain data to be disclosed or may challenge the existence of the order to protect information of a private nature disclosed to the suspect. Ultimately, a judge, when considering whether such an order should be varied, will need to be satisfied that the requirements in Clause 4 continue to be fulfilled.
Clause 7 also recognises that in some cases an appropriate officer may wish to apply to vary or revoke an order; for example, the electronic data sought may not be valuable to the investigation any more or the data may have been sourced elsewhere. In addition, the power to apply to vary or revoke an order exists for the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate. Given that they are responsible for serving an order on a person, they will need to ensure that the order reflects the international co-operation arrangement terms.
It is right that any application to vary an order should satisfy the same requirements as those that should be satisfied when an application for such an order is made in the first instance. This will include specifying the international co-operation arrangement and specifying or describing the electronic data for which the varied order is sought. Similarly, an application may not be made to vary an order to include data which the applicant reasonably believes consists of or includes excepted electronic data. When considering a varied order, the judge will need to take into account the same factors as when the order was originally granted. This will ensure that the data sought still serves a purpose to the investigation.
Amendment 24, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to clarify that the power to vary or revoke an overseas production order given to a judge under Clause 7(1) can be used to revoke part of an order. I reassure her that the amendment is not needed. Subsection (1)(a) already gives a power to vary an overseas production order, which would include revoking it in part—for example, by narrowing the scope of electronic data to be produced—and I therefore hope that she will withdraw the amendment.
The noble Baroness asked whether a provider can say that it will refer this to the judge. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked a similar question. The provider must refer to the judge but cannot actively say it is doing so because of a potential non-disclosure requirement. It is up to the judge whether an order can be disclosed, including the fact of it.
On Amendment 25, when making an overseas production order, a judge may also include a non-disclosure requirement as part of that order, in line with my previous comment. It is not mandatory and whether a non-disclosure requirement is necessary will depend on the facts of each case. Clause 7(1) already includes a provision for revoking or varying an overseas production order. Where a non-disclosure requirement is part of that production order, Clause 7(1) will also apply, allowing the judge to consider an application to vary the order so that it no longer includes such a requirement. There are further provisions in subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 8 that provide a discretion for the judge, when revoking an overseas production order, to order that an unexpired non-disclosure requirement continues to operate. The judge can specify a time when the non-disclosure requirement is to expire that is different from that specified in the revoked overseas production order.
It is the Government’s intention that such orders—that is, an order which maintains a non-disclosure requirement even when the overseas production order has been revoked to ensure that an ongoing or future investigation is not prejudiced—should be capable of being varied or revoked on application. We intend to use court rules to provide for this. The Government will review whether these provisions can be made in court rules and will come back to this issue on Report.
On Amendment 26, the Bill makes it clear that a non-disclosure requirement can be imposed as part of an overseas production order. With the leave of the judge under Clause 8(2)(a), or with the written permission of the appropriate officer who applied for the order or an equivalent officer under Clause 8(2)(b), a person who is subject to a non-disclosure requirement could disclose the making of an order or its contents to any person.
Therefore, a mechanism exists by which a person against whom the order is made has a route to challenge and disapply the provisions of the non-disclosure order under Clause 8. Furthermore, when a non-disclosure requirement is included as part of an overseas production order, that order is capable of being varied under Clause 7 in its entirety as it currently stands. No further clarification is needed for non-disclosure requirements separately, as is proposed by Amendment 25.
Lord Rosser
Could I ask for some clarification? Do the seven days apply at present for domestic orders? In other words, has a view been taken that if seven days is sufficient for a domestic order, it is presumably also sufficient for an order made in this country affecting somebody in the States to apply within seven days? Will it not be a rather more complicated process to apply within a seven-day period, if it is an order made in this country applying to somebody in the States? Does this clause work in the situations of an overseas production order made in this country and orders made in the country with which we have a bilateral agreement applying to British service providers, or does it apply in only one direction?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As I understand it, seven days is a standard timeframe. I totally take what the noble Lord says in the sense that we are talking about overseas production orders, but the whole purpose of the Bill is that it is a simpler process in the governing of electronic data. It is a standard period of time that we feel to be proportionate.
Lord Rosser
Would the Minister not agree that somebody in the United States must have a pretty good working knowledge of our legal system to know where to apply if they want to revoke or vary an order within seven days?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I take the noble Lord’s point. I imagine that all of that would be laid out in the agreement, given that it would be set out, but I can certainly have a think about that. Perhaps we can talk about it when we meet.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am grateful for the long explanation. I had correctly anticipated what the Minister would say about non-disclosure and the impact it might have on an operation. Perhaps I may pursue what happens if a customer asks, “Is there a non-disclosure order in force?” When receiving that inquiry should the answer be, “No comment”, which implies yes? What should it be and how is this dealt with in the real world?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My guess—I am sure that the Box will correct me if I am wrong—is that if a non-disclosure order is in train then nobody can comment on it, so whether one was in train or not it would be a “no comment” procedure anyway because there would otherwise be a breach.
Baroness Hamwee
I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
Lord Rosser
I will be very brief. Clause 9(1) states that an overseas production order that is not served within a period of three months is automatically quashed. My Amendment 29 would reduce the three months in the Bill to two months. The purpose of the amendment is to give the Government the opportunity to say why it is felt that as long a period as three months is needed before an order is quashed if it has not been served.
As the Minister said in the previous discussion, the purpose of the Bill is to provide a much faster means of obtaining electronic data than is currently available under the mutual legal assistance process, which can and does take months. Bearing in mind the need for greater speed in respect of serious crime and terrorism offences or investigations, why could it then take as long as three months to serve an overseas production order once it had been made, and for the specific requirements set out in Clause 4(2) to (6) to be met? Why would two months, as suggested in this amendment, be insufficient, and if it is deemed by the Government to be insufficient, in what kind of cases or circumstances would that be the position? I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
I have not got a lot to say on this—but I will say it nevertheless. On Amendment 29, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that if there is an order it should be served quickly—although my reaction was, “If it’s so objectionable that the period should be reduced, there shouldn’t be an order at all”. However, in light of his remarks, perhaps I misunderstood the direction in which he is going.
Amendments 36 and 37 are grouped with Amendment 29 and relate to Clause 14, which is about “means of service”. Clause 14(3) refers to service on a person outside the UK by delivering the order or notice, or whatever it is, to that person’s office or place of business. I wonder whether a person could be outside the UK but at the same time have an office in the UK—unless its base is outside. I am not quite sure what those words mean in context.
Amendment 37 relates to Clause 14(3)(a), which says that service can be made by delivery to a place,
“in the United Kingdom where the person carries on business or conducts activities”.
What does “conducts activities” mean if it does not amount to carrying on business? Is this just a bit of belt and braces? If it is, I would not take exception, but I wonder whether the phrase is normally used, because it seems to be part of carrying on business.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made a valid point about consistency. The aim of the Bill is to strike a balance between the operational need to have flexibility for serving such an order and the legal certainty of the obligations that are placed on those who are subject to an order. There is a similarity with PACE, which also provides a three-month time limit from the date an order is issued for an entry and search to be completed. The Government do resist the amendment—but, given what the noble Lord pointed out, I would be open to discussing this ahead of Report.
On Amendment 36, the notice provisions under Clause 14 have been drafted to allow for flexibility, and reflect the complexity surrounding the service of notices on those based overseas. A “person” is taken to mean an individual or a body corporate. In addition, the Government have been careful to construct the clauses in such a way as to avoid persons hiding behind corporate identities and structures, where they may be based or registered elsewhere in one place but operate out of another country. If a person is located outside the UK and the other conditions for granting a production order are fulfilled, a production order can be served. Adding terminology such as “resident” will confuse what is otherwise a straightforward matter of being able to serve on those persons, legal or otherwise, based outside the UK.
On Amendment 37, Clause 14(3)(a) seeks to reflect the model in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 where the availability of a method of service is not based solely on the establishment of a business pursuant to any domestic or foreign law but instead should depend on where a person actually conducts their business activities. Amendment 37 would narrow the availability of the method of service described in Clause 14(3)(a) in cases where the person is outside the UK but has no principal office here. The Bill currently provides that that service could be effected by delivering the notice,
“to any place in the United Kingdom where the person carries on business or conducts activities”.
The amendment would restrict this to places where the person carries on business. I hope that that is not too complicated. I think that the restriction would be unhelpful. Perhaps it would help if I explained what is intended by “conducts activities”—which is the very question the noble Baroness asked.
The Government intend that “activities” in this sense would mean the corporate activities or business activities according to a common interpretation of the provision. The Government have been careful to construct the clauses in such a way as to avoid persons hiding behind corporate entities and structures, where they may be based or registered elsewhere in one place but operate out of another country. If a person is located outside the UK and the other conditions for granting a production order are made, a production order can be served. Limiting the service to places where business is conducted will introduce complexity where it is not required. However, if there is more we can do to make clear what is intended by “conducts activities”, I am happy to consider whether it is possible to clarify these terms further in the Explanatory Notes.
Baroness Hamwee
I am grateful for that. Reading the clause, it occurs to me that one could avoid being served by moving around from place to place, whether “carrying on business” or “conducting activities”, because at the point of service you might no longer be conducting activities in that place. The terminology is in the present tense. Has thought been given—I am sure it has, because officials are always way ahead of me—to whether that is an issue?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As I said, if the noble Baroness is confused, that is an indication to me to look at what the Explanatory Notes say—because if she is confused by it, others will be, too.
Baroness Hamwee
I am a bit confused, but that last point is not something to answer now. It is about whether we are talking about the present or whether, having been at an address in, say, Newcastle at one point, and you have moved to Liverpool, there can be service in Newcastle.
Lord Rosser
Bearing in mind that the Minister has said, without making any commitment, that she will reflect further on the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment 30 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 31 or 32 for reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 30
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
I do not suppose that that will trouble us in Grand Committee.
Clause 10 deals with the retention of data and its use as evidence. Clause 10(1) provides that data,
“may be retained for so long as is necessary in all the circumstances. This includes retaining it so that it may be used as evidence in proceedings in respect of an offence”.
“Necessary in all the circumstances” is quite a wide term. It may be unkind of me but, when I reread it yesterday, it felt as though the writer had run out of steam. One example is given but I would have expected more information about protections and clarification; otherwise, how does one challenge this? Therefore, the amendment is intended to ask the Minister how the Home Office envisages that this clause will operate in practice.
Given the example included, I wonder whether the Home Office anticipates producing guidance regarding retention, and that is the subject of Amendment 31. Amendment 32 is intended to probe the term “an offence”. Does this mean any offence? In particular, if an offence other than the object of this exercise is disclosed, is a fresh application needed or can this be—I will use the extreme term—an unending fishing expedition? I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raises three important amendments here and I look forward to the Minister’s response. She is right that, as written, the provision appears to be very wide in scope, and it would be better to have more clarification. The terms “in all the circumstances” and “an offence” are very wide, and it would be good to hear what they are. As the noble Baroness said, it would appear that there could be a never-ending fishing expedition, which in itself would not serve justice. I look forward to hearing the response to the very valid points raised.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their points. I turn to the first point that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made—I am sorry, he did not speak, so it must have been the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee; they do not look anything like each other. Where material is provided in compliance with a PACE production order, police are in principle able to use that material where it is relevant and necessary for another policing purpose, including a separate criminal investigation. The intention behind the overseas production order is basically to replicate the powers available to law enforcement under current domestic production powers. Under the Bill, the same will apply to electronic data obtained under overseas production orders. This ensures that law enforcement officials can use their independent discretion to consider what is appropriate to help with the conduct of their duties.
The effect of Amendment 32 would be to restrict the retention of the evidence produced in respect of an overseas production order to the offence for which the order was made. The Bill’s provisions do not dictate when an officer should apply for a new production order in respect of data received that is to be used for a different purpose. Again, this is consistent with existing practice. The Bill simply makes the same provisions in relation to orders which can be served on an entity outside the UK, where a relevant agreement is in place, as in relation to orders which can be served on a company based here.
It will always be appropriate for law enforcement officers and prosecutors to consider what can be used in an investigation and for evidential purposes. They will assess the likelihood of challenge in court where evidence produced in relation to a production order is adduced for a separate criminal offence. That is already their bread and butter. In all likelihood in those situations an appropriate officer may well decide that it would be more appropriate for a new production order to be obtained for the material produced that points to a separate offence.
A question was asked about guidance. The Government will consider whether it is necessary to produce policy guidance to assist an appropriate officer in these circumstances but, given that the Bill reflects existing practice in relation to production, I do not see that it brings about a new challenge for our law enforcement or prosecution professionals and I do not think it is necessary to mandate it in the Bill. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
That was a very long explanation of why the clause is as it is and I thank the Minister for it. She referred to how this in effect mirrors what we have in PACE. Is guidance provided on PACE?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
There is a code of practice for PACE. We will look at whether some guidance is necessary for this replicated process.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the Minister for saying she will look at those points. If we are mirroring PACE then we can mirror the guidance as well.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I think I am going to have to spend some time between now and Report familiarising myself with PACE or hand this over to my noble friend Lord Paddick, whose bread and butter it was at one time. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, but I remain faintly uneasy about how open this is. Nevertheless I thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
“Priority
In the event of any conflict between this Act and the Data Protection Act 2018 (“the DPA”) or the General Data Protection Regulation 2018 (“the GDPR”), the provisions of the DPA or the GDPR shall prevail.”
Lord Paddick
My Lords, Amendment 39 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I am grateful for the briefing from techUK, which raises concerns about how this legislation might affect a deal between the EU and the UK on adequacy should the UK leave the European Union. We are unsure how to address those concerns and this amendment is very unlikely to be the means by which to do so, but at this stage it is a means of raising them. It is a bit of a Second Reading amendment, if noble Lords get my drift.
Throughout our debates it has been emphasised that the sole purpose of this legislation is to enable UK law enforcement agencies to find a faster legal means to secure data held overseas that may contain vital evidence in serious criminal cases being prosecuted in the UK than the current mutual legal assistance treaty process. Data handled in the UK is subject to the protections of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the EU general data protection regulations. Indeed, the Data Protection Act ensures that the GDPR continues to have effect, even if the UK does leave the EU.
Throughout our debates on this legislation we have expressed our concerns that the designated international co-operation arrangements that enable overseas production orders to have effect in the target state will give as much right to overseas law enforcement agencies to demand data from UK service providers as the right this legislation will give UK law enforcement agencies to demand data from a service provider in a foreign state. Those foreign states, such as the United States of America, are not bound by the Data Protection Act or the GDPR.
For a third country to exchange data with the EU it must persuade the EU that it has adequate protections for personal data equivalent to or exceeding the standards that EU countries have to comply with under the GDPR. Indeed, EU states are not bound by EU regulation relating to data used for national security purposes, but third-party states are. For the first time, if we leave the EU, the EU will scrutinise the way we handle data in relation to national security because we will become a third-party country, involving more scrutiny than currently takes place. I think that is called “taking back control”. Whether in relation to national security or not—we have already debated the weaker safeguards proposed in relation to terrorism offences—such arrangements could result in personal data from an EU country and shared with a UK service provider being passed to a law enforcement agency in a state that falls short of the protections provided by the GDPR.
In summary, our concern is that, by entering into international co-operation agreements enabling overseas law enforcement agencies directly to access personal data held in the UK by UK service providers, sensitive personal data will be accessed by overseas law enforcement agencies whose standards fall below those set out in the Data Protection Act and the GDPR, thereby jeopardising the EU granting the UK an adequacy certificate. Could the Minister explain what discussions have taken place with the EU on this issue and how the UK’s adequacy status will be protected? I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I fully support the amendment moved by the noble Lord. I recall our debates in the Chamber on the GDPR and how important it is to get the adequacy certificate to make sure that we are compliant with all these regulations, and we cannot put that at risk in subsequent legislation. I am looking for the Minister to address that point. The noble Lord has raised a very valid point. We need to get this right before this legislation reaches the statute book.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for the point that he has made, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for backing it up. I smiled when the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about countries that fall short of our data protection laws. We are probably at the top of the EU league table in terms of the rigour of our data protection legislation—I can think of some countries that might fall into the category that the noble Lord talks about—but the Bill will put on an equal footing the means by which UK law enforcement officers or prosecutors can apply to the court for access to electronic evidence, irrespective of whether the data is held by an entity based in the UK or based elsewhere in the world. UK law enforcement will be bound by the very robust Data Protection Act 2018 when processing personal data obtained pursuant to an overseas production order or where access has been given to data pursuant to such an order.
The noble Lord asked what discussions have been taking place. Those discussions are above my pay grade. I have not been involved in them personally but I know that they will have been going on, certainly in the background. However, the noble Lord makes a very good point about the adequacy decision. He also asked how we will ensure that data is used for the correct purposes. That is all part and parcel of what our Data Protection Act provides for. I am absolutely convinced that we in the UK have the right data protection safeguards in place and, when it comes to data protection and other countries, we will ensure that the same rigour is in place in the country with which we have made an agreement.
Clause 6(4)(c) states that an overseas production order,
“has effect in spite of any restriction”.
The noble Lord asked whether that means that UK CSPs do not need to comply with data protection. Having effect “in spite of any restriction” relates only to the effect of an order served on a CSP outside the UK, so the restrictions can only be in UK law, as we obviously cannot seek to override laws in other countries.
It might be helpful to reiterate that, when making a production order, a judge must consider the requirements set out in Clause 4. In doing so, he or she will need to consider whether the evidence is of substantial value to the investigation or proceedings and whether it is in the public interest to produce the information, balancing these factors with the right to privacy. It stands to reason that the more sensitive the data, the harder it will be for the applicant to justify the public interest test. I hope that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to put it into the Bill that, in cases of dispute, the GDPR shall prevail. Is the noble Baroness saying that this is implied anyway, or not necessary? If we end up with this on the statute book as it is now, and the matter of which Act applies were to become a matter of dispute in the courts, that is not where we would want to be.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with the noble Lord, but I am saying there would be an underlying basis for data protection, which is the Data Protection Act. Therefore, while there are many things we could put on the faces of many Bills, it is not necessary in this case—we already have laws governing the protection of data.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
With that comment, is the Minister saying that, actually, GDPR will prevail?
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, as the Minister is responding, it seems that this falls into a similar category to a point we raised last week about how one balances the different public interests involved. I think the Minister is saying that there is a public interest in the application of the Data Protection Act and the GDPR, which takes us back to the clause about assessing public interest. The Minister is nodding at that. Perhaps, before Report, we should go back and look at how that might apply in this context as well.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, and to other noble Lords, for their contributions. In essence, my question is: if the EU has to assess whether we are safeguarding its data, yet we are entering into agreements to give away that data to another country, will the EU need to be satisfied that that other country also has standards of data protection equivalent to or better than the GDPR? If not, we might be putting the adequacy judgments at risk. That is the essence of the amendment. I would be grateful for an opportunity to discuss this further with the Minister in the meetings between now and Report but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Child Sexual Abuse: Safeguarding Failures
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they plan to respond to the report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse regarding safeguarding failures at Downside and Ampleforth schools, published in August 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, before answering the noble Baroness’s Question, I inform the House that various members of my wife’s family attended Ampleforth. I have never visited the school nor had any other connection with it.
The report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse regarding Downside and Ampleforth schools did not make specific recommendations to my department. However, a regulator of independent schools is carefully considering the inquiry’s findings. We have asked inspectors to pay close attention to the matters in the report at the next inspection of Downside. Ampleforth is currently under regulatory action and must improve or face further action, which could include closure.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the committee had evidence that one of the schools consulted its legal adviser as to whether it was legally obliged to report the abuse that it knew about. Having learned that it was not so obliged, it decided to cover it up. How much more evidence do the Government require of the need for mandatory reporting of child abuse in regulated activity? Of course, that does not include social workers, because social work is not a regulated activity. Will the Government now follow the evidence and respond with legislation?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, it is absolutely unacceptable for anyone to conceal abuse. The Government are committed to ensuring that legislation can adequately deal with this. We will scope this issue fully during the current Parliament. What individuals and organisations should do is already clear in statutory guidance. The guidance also makes it clear that there is a legal duty on employers to make a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service in certain circumstances.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, have the Government considered how IICSA’s current inquiry with the 13-strand remit to examine the role of institutions, including educational institutions, has decided to single out and give priority to the case of the late Greville Janner, where there was no arrest, no proceedings and therefore no challenge on evidence, no conviction, all civil claims collapsed and where the deceased’s family has been denied the right to cross-examine and test the evidence? On what possible basis has IICSA been allowed to decide to identify Janner uniquely, effectively trying a dead man in his absence? Do I detect a hint of institutional anti-Semitism here? This is a question about process, and something is very wrong.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I can assure noble Lords that there is no religious prejudice of any kind. I am happy to take this matter up with the independent inquiry and write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, we know that many faith schools, and the great majority of non-faith schools, provide an excellent service. Will the Minister institute a full-scale investigation into the potential risks in some of our faith schools, not only of child sexual abuse but of homophobic attitudes and behaviour and, in some schools—often different ones—the promotion and encouragement of the cruel practice of female genital mutilation? These practices are utterly unacceptable in our country and reform should surely begin in our schools.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, where independent schools are charities they are regulated by the Charity Commission. We regulate all of them in terms of their right to run a school. The noble Baroness mentioned female genital mutilation; that is one of the few areas where there is a mandatory requirement to report any suspicions or evidence of it to the police. We take that very seriously and awareness of it is growing in schools.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, appalling things happened at these two schools, for which the most profound sense of shame must always be felt. Has my noble friend noted the appointment of Ampleforth’s first female head, Deirdre Rowe, an expert in child safeguarding, who has said that she will lead the school into a new era? More generally, does he agree that boarding schools today are among the most thoroughly regulated and stringently inspected schools in the world?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the degree of oversight of boarding schools in this country is probably one of the most stringent anywhere in the world. I am delighted that Ampleforth has appointed a female head. As part of the Charity Commission’s oversight of that school, it has appointed an independent observer, Emma Moody, who has the rights and powers of a trustee and is there specifically to oversee safeguarding.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the independent inquiry investigated history cases of appalling child sexual abuse. However, in April this year, the Charity Commission announced that it had stripped the charities that run Ampleforth School of their ability to have safeguarding oversight. A recent audit at Downside School by the Social Care Institute for Excellence found that there were still several important weaknesses in safeguarding. Yet the last two reports by the Independent Schools Inspectorate gave both schools a clean bill of health on safeguarding. Given that the inspectorate is monitored by Ofsted on behalf of the Department for Education, what efforts will Ministers make to ascertain how it managed to miss the continuing failings at those wretched establishments?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, the noble Lord is right that the ISI is overseen by the Department for Education and is also monitored by Ofsted. The Ampleforth matter is not over yet; there will be another inspection shortly. Everyone realises that that school is in the last chance saloon on the matter of safeguarding.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has talked about the last chance saloon and said that schools know what they should be doing. However, they are still not reporting all cases. When will the Government introduce mandatory reporting for regulated activities?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I know that there are calls for mandatory reporting and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who asked the Question, is a keen advocate of it. All noble Lords will be aware that we have consulted on this matter. We had 760 responses from social workers, police officers and other connected parties. Some 70% of them felt that mandatory reporting would have an adverse impact; 85% said that it would not, in itself, lead to the appropriate action being taken. However, over the last few years we have prioritised sexual abuse as a national threat, to empower police forces to maximise skills and expertise. This is one of only six such threats that require prioritisation.
Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that all former Ministers seek advice from the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments before taking up appointments within two years of leaving ministerial office.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the Ministerial Code was updated in January 2018 to underline the importance of the business appointment rules to both current and former Ministers, and reiterating the requirement to seek advice from the independent advisory committee before announcing or taking up any new appointments. In addition, the Minister for the Cabinet Office has recently written to ministerial colleagues reminding them of the importance of the rules in maintaining public confidence in the integrity of our public servants.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response but he will know that the committee so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, is an advisory committee, not a statutory committee, and can impose no sanctions on any former Minister who does not seek the committee’s approval. Essentially, it remains as a code of honour. We should not be surprised, I suppose, that the latest transgressor of this system is Mr Boris Johnson, who perhaps seems to have a rather distant acquaintance with the notion of honour. When will the Government agree to make this a statutory committee and be able to impose sanctions in order to make the system work?
Lord Young of Cookham
I join the noble Lord in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Browning, who chairs ACOBA. Until I read its annual report, I had not realised quite how much work it did—some 230 appointments in a year—or how complex some of the cases were. The noble Lord suggests that the system should be statutory. ACOBA has been non-statutory since it was established in 1975. I see two problems in making it statutory. First, it would be much more difficult to amend it and bring it up to date—it would become less flexible; at the moment it can be updated overnight. Secondly, if you make it statutory I suspect that decisions would take longer to deliver but, crucially, they would then be justiciable: they could be challenged in the courts. I think there is a real risk of crystallising a potential conflict between the rules of ACOBA and the common-law right that individuals have to earn a living in their own right.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Ministerial Code clearly states that,
“Former Ministers must ensure that no new appointments are announced, or taken up, before the Committee has been able to provide its advice”.
It goes on to say,
“Former Ministers must abide by the advice of the Committee which will be published by the Committee when a role is announced or taken up”.
Of course, there is a minimum three-month waiting period on resignation. Boris Johnson breached all these elements of the Ministerial Code, which explains the very strong tone of this letter. Should there not be some comeback when Ministers who have signed the Ministerial Code breach it within days of leaving office?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord refers quite rightly to the stern rebuke from my noble friend in her letter to the Foreign Secretary:
“The Committee considers it to be unacceptable that you signed a contract with The Telegraph and your appointment was announced before you had sought and obtained advice from the Committee, as was incumbent on you on leaving office”.
The former Foreign Secretary should not have treated with such insouciance the rules, which had been brought to his attention and which he acknowledged he had read as recently as January this year. I am not an apologist for the former Foreign Secretary—that requires a portfolio of skills that I do not have. However, in his defence, the rules are designed to prevent a Minister, using the knowledge he acquires and the relationships he develops in the department, from rolling the pitch for a lucrative job subsequently in a related organisation. In the case of the former Foreign Secretary, after two years he reverted back to a career in journalism, a career for which his qualities are perhaps better suited. Therefore, while I do not in any way undermine the seriousness of his offence, what he did was not quite the revolving door that one normally sees—and the revolving door ended up with him back where he started.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My noble friend will be aware that the full ACOBA rules were appended to the Ministerial Code at the request of the ACOBA Committee. The point about honour is very well made: any non-statutory body, whether it involves the Ministerial Code or the ACOBA rules, will only work if it is dealing with people of honour. I commend to my noble friend the definition of honour made at the funeral of the late Senator John McCain. Perhaps my noble friend could communicate to the Cabinet Office that as far as the Ministerial Code is concerned, for which I have no authority whatsoever at ACOBA, consideration should be given to in some way debarring people who do not behave with honour, or a penalty should be imposed so that they cannot hold public office for a limited amount of time—two years would probably be a good idea—after they have flagrantly ignored both the Ministerial Code and the ACOBA rules?
Lord Young of Cookham
My noble friend makes a good point about honour. When one joins your Lordships’ House we subscribe to the Code of Conduct, and part of that is an injunction to act,
“always on … personal honour”.
Those words have been used for centuries to describe the conduct that one should follow in the House. The former Foreign Secretary seems to defy the laws of political gravity. I certainly take my noble friend’s point: once you are no longer a Minister you are not subject to the Ministerial Code, so there is no formal sanction. However, as my noble friend suggested, I will certainly pursue her suggestion with the Cabinet Office. But at the end of the day, a Prime Minister is free to appoint whomever he or she wants, but I hope that whoever may hold that office will take into account the behaviour of Ministers when they defy the Ministerial Code.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, some years ago I served on this committee and grew increasingly frustrated by the revolving doors, but could not interest the then Prime Minister in any changes. Is it not the time to have an independent and thorough review of its workings; to tighten things up and lengthen the period before which officeholders can take up new posts—and, better still, to warn them early in their careers that they will not be able to glide as quickly into new posts; and to have sanctions where there are breaches?
Lord Young of Cookham
I take very seriously the suggestions of the noble and learned Lord, who served on this committee. The ACOBA is monitored closely by a Select Committee in the other place—the so-called PACAC committee—which has produced a series of reports making a number of recommendations, to which the Government have responded. We propose to tighten the current non-statutory scheme with increased transparency, awareness and monitoring, and we are also sharing any letters with prospective employers so that they are aware of any restraints on those who join their organisations. Finally, most of the people who come before ACOBA are people in public life with a high profile—indeed, many of them are Members of your Lordships’ House—and I suspect that many will not want to take the reputational hit of being publicly criticised by ACOBA. The prospective employer may wonder why they should take on somebody who has so recently flouted the rules of their previous employer.
Immigration Policy: Children and Parents
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the extent to which the implementation of immigration policy has led to the separation of children from their parents.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the family Immigration Rules and the policy on exceptional circumstances provide a clear basis for considering applications to remain in the UK. Individuals with no leave to remain are expected to leave voluntarily. We may enforce their removal if they do not. Our family separation guidance makes clear that staff must consider the best interests of any children, including their needs and caring arrangements, before taking enforcement action.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, how many children are presently separated from their parents or carers in the UK as a result of decisions taken by the immigration authorities to implement the policies of the Government?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am afraid that I cannot provide the noble Lord with that exact detail, as it is not available. However, we have done dip sampling in the cases of 84 foreign national offenders from July 2017 to July 2018, and two family separations were detected. It is not clear whether they were temporary or whether we were seeking to remove one parent from the UK.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the best interests of the child, no doubt reminding us of Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. What records are kept of the factors considered in applying Section 55 and the convention when the child is separated from his or her parents? Are the records available to the parent and the representative of the child, despite the exception regarding immigration in the recent Data Protection Act?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As I just said to the noble Lord, we do not keep official records of the numbers, but the Office of the Children’s Commissioner will look at every case where such decisions are considered—the complex cases—so that those interests are weighed before any decisions are taken.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister clarify that answer, because the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether records were kept of the considerations taken into account in reaching the decisions? Are they kept or not?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I apologise to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for not being clear. Clearly, safeguarding records and records of decisions taken are kept. I was trying, in the first instance, to refer back to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy; I cannot tell the noble Baroness and the noble Lord how many of those decisions were made.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Will the Minister comment on the estimate by BID—Bail for Immigration Detainees—that there are at least 170 cases where children have been separated from their parents as a result of them being detained? Will she also go back to her department to check those figures and perhaps produce a more accurate answer that Members of this House can take on board and inspect?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I understood that the numbers were 155. I do not have the details of the cases but if any noble Lords were to give me details of such cases I would be very happy to take them up. It is, however, important to consider in the round that if children are separated from their parents it is not necessarily for immigration reasons: it may be because of safeguarding issues—a parent is violent and the child needs to be separated from them—or for temporary reasons, such as the illness of the parent.
UK-EU Future Relationship: Young Voters
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what opportunities there will be for United Kingdom citizens who have reached the age of 18 since the European Union referendum to have a say on the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, we continue to take a cross-Whitehall approach to engagement with young people, working closely with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that we speak to stakeholders who represent a range of groups and opinions. DExEU Ministers and officials have held bilateral meetings and a round table with youth organisations that represent a cross-section of young people, and this engagement will continue as negotiations progress.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
Oh. But may I invite the Minister to join the growing tide in favour of a people’s vote, not because the referendum was corrupted—although it was—but because this will be the first opportunity we will all have to choose between the result of the negotiation, on the one hand, and the status quo on the other? It will be the first time that 18, 19 and 20 year-olds will have had a chance to play any part in it, not having had a chance to do so in the referendum. It matters so much more to them than to us lot.
Lord Callanan
I remind the noble Lord that we have had a people’s vote already. I do not know what he thinks, but I thought that the people voted in the first referendum. David Cameron said, in 2015, that it would be the final decision: a once-in-a generation choice. To use a more personal example, I was not old enough to vote in the 1975 referendum, in which he no doubt participated. I cannot remember much about what happened then, but I might well have voted no, and I have had to live for 40 years with the decision that his generation took. That is in the nature of binary referendums: those old enough and eligible at the time participate.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not think it absurd that the noble Lord should be arguing for a second referendum on our decision to leave the European Union while at the same time arguing against a second referendum on Scottish independence?
Lord Callanan
None of the positions that the noble Lord takes strikes me as particularly more absurd than any of his other positions.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, your Lordships’ House voted for 16 and 17 year-olds to be enfranchised in the 2016 referendum. The then Prime Minister was determined that they should not be enfranchised. As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said, those people have now reached maturity. In a general election, one would expect to be able to vote to kick out the Government and, at the age of 16 or 17, be able to vote at the next general election. The same is not being said of the referendum. For how long is the 2016 referendum meant to be valid? If we stopped holding general elections, I might have stopped the clock in 2010 and we would have had Liberal Democrats in government in perpetuity.
Lord Callanan
I am not sure how popular that would have been. Of course, young people who are 16 or 17 will be able to vote in the next general election. No doubt they will have the option, if they are particularly crazy, of voting Liberal Democrats—who may well put the option of rejoining the European Union in their manifesto. We will see how many votes they get on that basis.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, is that not tantamount to the noble Lord suggesting that it would be possible for 16 and 17 year-olds to have a chance, two years after a general election, to record their opinion?
Lord Callanan
People have opportunities to record their opinion all the time. It is the nature of a democratic society. As people reach maturity, they vote in local council elections—or some do—and in general elections, and occasionally, one or two of them might even vote Liberal Democrat.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The Minister’s colleague until very recently, Steve Baker, warns of a Conservative split if we stick to Chequers. Boris Johnson used his usual rather distasteful language also to undermine Chequers, and this morning, Simon Clarke of the ERG seemed to want anything other than Chequers, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Maude, in this House now supports the EEA. Whether the final deal is agreed by the Commons or by the people, is it not time that the Minister fessed up and admitted that this Chequers deal will simply never fly?
Lord Callanan
The noble Baroness has illustrated the breadth of opinion that there is on the subject in her party as well as in mine. All we can do as a Government is to set out a credible, realistic proposal. We are negotiating on that basis and waiting for a formal response from the European Commission. We will negotiate the best possible deal that we can for the United Kingdom and then, as we have said, we will put that agreement to a vote in the House of Commons and MPs will determine whether it meets with their approval.
Lord Newby (LD)
The Minister is keen to talk about the Government respecting the will of the British people. How does that square with the fact that every recent opinion poll has shown that a significant majority want a vote on any deal, or lack of deal, and that if there were such a vote, a majority say that the country would vote to remain? Are the Government respecting the current will of the British people?
Lord Callanan
It might surprise the noble Lord to know that we do not have government by opinion poll. If we did, we might have some strange results, such as on capital punishment, which he might not support. As I said, we are taking forward the proposals that we put forward in good faith. We are negotiating on them and will put the result of the negotiations to a vote in the House of Commons and a take-note debate in this House, and then we will see where we go from there. That is what we have said, and we can only do our best in those circumstances.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, has my noble friend noted that, by spring next year, the number of young people who will have attained the age of 18 since June 2016 will exceed in number the majority in the referendum that took place in 2016? Those nearly 2 million young people know that the referendum determined that we should leave the European Union, but it is evident from the debates in this House and the other place that the nature of our future relationship with the European Union is anything but settled. Does my noble friend have a suggestion as to how all those young people might have the opportunity to express a view and perhaps give their consent, if necessary, to whatever conclusion Parliament reaches about the nature of that future relationship?
Lord Callanan
I assume that that was an obtuse reference to having another referendum. I think that the practical difficulties of that are immense. For a start, there are a number of opinions in this House and elsewhere about what any question should be. It would take at least a year—and possibly longer—to get the legislation through. I can imagine all of the arguments; it took 13 months for us to have the last referendum. There would have to be opinions from the Electoral Commission on what the question should be. Some people want a vote on the principle of leaving or not; others want a vote on the final deal. In the meantime, we are leaving the European Union on 29 March next year. What is supposed to happen in the meantime? The whole thing would be chaos. We are going to negotiate the best deal that we possibly can in the interests of this country. As I said, we will put that deal to a vote in both Houses.
Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)
How can it make sense to have a referendum on what might be, but refuse to have a referendum on what it actually is? What is the difference between the previous referendum and the one we are thinking of now? You will be asked to judge on what actually is the case for leaving, not on the hypotheticals one way or the other.
Lord Callanan
I think that if there was a referendum, people would vote to leave just the same. Anyway, we are not going to have a referendum, so we are not going to find out. We are going to put the deal that we negotiate to the House of Commons, as is proper in a democracy, and it will take a decision about whether it accepts it or not.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, will the Government give an undertaking that in the event of a referendum on the final outcome, nobody will be disenfranchised, particularly in relation to the 15-year rule?
Lord Callanan
We do not need to give an assurance on such matters because we are not going to have another referendum.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, in his initial Answer to this Question the Minister talked about the various engagement activities that were taking place with young people. Could he tell the House how he personally has engaged with the people whom we are talking about now, who were disenfranchised because of their age at the last referendum? Could he tell us whether the minutes of those discussions are available and what he personally learned from those discussions? If it transpires that he has not had any discussions, is it not rather odd that a Minister from his department has not been engaged in talking with young people, who are most affected by these decisions?
Lord Callanan
We as a Government as a whole have regular engagement with young people’s organisations. As I said, the lead for that is taken by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport; but we regularly hold round-table meetings, and surprisingly young people come to some of those as well. I have had meetings with religious and business organisations, and others. We will continue to engage with all sorts of different organisations. It is not just young people who vote in these referendums; other people also have a say and are entitled to have their opinion heard. We made a decision as a country, as a whole, and that opinion will be respected.
Ivory Bill
Monday 10th September 2018
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Ivory Act 2018 View all Ivory Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 119-II Second marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (10 Sep 2018)
Lord Cormack
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is designed to ensure that steps taken to enforce the Bill are directed primarily at those who poach, use and trade in poached ivory.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, this Bill, which received its second reading in July, is far-reaching and has real implications for many people whom this House does not always consider. Before I move the amendment and explain why I think it is important, perhaps I might strike a note that I am sure will receive the approbation of everyone in the House and also those who have now quitted it—namely, that we wish to send our warmest good wishes to my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham, who is in hospital at the moment. We hope to see him back in full fighting form by the time that this Bill reaches Report.
I thought it would be sensible to table, at the very beginning of this Bill, an amendment that enables us to discuss the fundamental, controversial point. I do not think that anyone in your Lordships’ House, present or absent, does not wholly subscribe to the aims of the Bill as they have been enunciated over the past year or more. We all deplore the poaching of elephants and we all wish to see those noble creatures, both in Africa and in Asia, preserved. We wish to see them multiply and we should have absolutely no compunction about treating those who poach these animals with the utmost severity. Equally, we should treat with the utmost severity those who work the tusks of the animals and those who profit from what has been worked. That, I think, is common ground across the House.
But one does not save an elephant from being poached by effectively forbidding people to own and treat as proper property ivory items that are one, two, three, four or five centuries old. It is true that the Bill has certain limited exemptions: items of supreme museum quality and those which contain, in the case of furniture and so on, less than 10% ivory, while in the case of musical instruments, less than 20% ivory, as well as miniatures, as long as they are less, I believe, than 320 centimetres in size. The very recognition that there should be exemptions creates a situation which is arbitrary in the extreme. The Government accept these exemptions and they therefore acknowledge that it is entirely proper for antique objects of either great importance or which have a small percentage of ivory to be saved. But where does the ivory come from? It is ivory that has come from elephants in the past and the recognition of this makes a nonsense of the proposition that all other antique ivory should, in effect, not be allowed to be kept or traded or sold. What I am saying in the amendment is that we should look at this carefully before proceeding.
I shall give your Lordships one or two examples. Only the other day, when I tabled my amendment, I had a letter from a body of which I had not previously heard: Chess Collectors International. Many people in our country enjoy playing chess, and until the beginning of the 20th century a very large number of chess pieces were made of ivory. Perhaps the most famous of all in this country are those made of walrus ivory, the Lewis chessmen in the British Museum. But there are many others, many of them made from elephant ivory. Often these chess collectors have purchased these sets not only because they wish to play chess with them but because they regard them as some of the finest small sculptures in existence and objects of beauty and importance.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, expressed, and of course we wish him a speedy recovery.
I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I have listened very carefully to his arguments, but he will not be surprised to hear that, on this amendment, we really cannot support the position that he has put forward. I think that, on this issue, he has his priorities wrong because this is a debate about where our energies and our loyalties should lie. I think that the whole emphasis, the reason that we had the consultation and have this Bill before us today, is that it was felt that the previous legislation was not working and therefore more stringent steps needed to be taken to stop the trade as concerns elephants.
I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord is saying, but I do not see that he is doing anything to help stop that trade. If anything, he is making the situation worse.
Lord Cormack
Can the noble Baroness give one single piece of evidence where the sale of a genuine piece of antique ivory has created the problems to which she alludes?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
The noble Lord will know that that is not the issue. The issue has always been that the market is flooded with some legitimate pieces and some illegitimate pieces, and the market has not been able to distinguish between the two. This is why we have to restrict the sale of goods more stringently than we have done. That is the issue. If we introduced his date of 1918 rather than 1947, we would be back to square 1 because everyone would suddenly reclassify their ivory as being pre-1918. We would be in the same ball game of trying to distinguish between what was legitimate and what was illegitimate. The problem is of being able to date what comes on to the market effectively. The legislation as it stands has had a problem with that, which is why we are taking these further steps, so we are having a debate at cross purposes. I am trying to do something that protects elephants. The noble Lord is trying to protect inanimate objects. I think that, at the end of the day, the elephants win that argument. They are a higher priority. That was the view of the vast majority of people who responded to the consultation. I will not rehearse all those arguments; we argued them through in the Second Reading. He will know that there was a huge response to the Government’s consultation, and the vast majority of people supported tighter restrictions because they could see that, without those, elephants are being hunted down and massacred to extinction. Nothing that he is saying today is going to stop that.
Lord Cormack
I have the figures here. Of the people who responded to the consultation exercise—and incidentally, 35,000 were identical emails—99% were from three organisations dedicated to the preserving of elephants. We all agree with the elephants’ being preserved, but you do not need to ban the sale of genuine antique items to preserve genuine living elephants.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
Can the noble Lord explain how to tell pre-1918 ivory from more modern ivory? Is there a kind of test that experts can do? Is it reasonably sound, or is it a matter of opinion?
Lord Cormack
I hesitate to respond when the noble Baroness has the floor, but, as the question was directed at me, yes, there are people who are expert in this and who are able to assess ivory very carefully. I am not saying that the test is infallible, because nothing is infallible. I referred to faked pictures when I was moving this amendment. It is, however, a very good test. It would pass “Fake or Fortune?” pretty comprehensively every Sunday evening.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, that is not the issue. The problem is that we simply do not have the resources to go around carbon-dating every single piece of ivory on the market. That is why we have to find some way of restricting it. If not, people will put their own classification on the ivory; sometimes it will be correct and sometimes it will be incorrect. We do not have the wherewithal or the facilities to manage that effectively. That is why the Bill is before us today: it gives us a structure for managing what ivory is coming on to the market and a more authenticated version of whether it is legitimate.
I take issue also with what the noble Lord said about the consultation. Around the Chamber, there are noble Lords who represent a number of the elephant charities whose members care passionately about the issue, but if we were to ask anybody in the street what they thought the priorities were, I think that the vast majority would say that they cared more about the elephants than the issues that he is raising today. That is the reality; the noble Lord has a very niche view of it, but I think that most people care more about seeing elephants and other animals living at peace in the wild.
The issue is not whether people own ivory. The noble Lord put great emphasis on sequestration and confiscation, but that is not what this Bill is about; it is about the buying and selling of ivory. People can own all the lovely pieces that he was talking about; they can pass it down through the family, but it is only when they want to buy or sell it that it becomes an issue. The Bill does not stop people valuing, loving and caring for family heirlooms. It is only the commercial market that is under question.
There are very good reasons for our trying to put in the Bill tightly worded exemptions—we shall talk about those shortly. The restrictions have to be extremely tight and the rarest and most precious items have to be recognised and distinguished. Not all items produced prior to 1918 are beautiful or valuable. There would be that cut-off date, but to allow all ivory unrestricted circulation in an unrestricted market would skew the market and undermine the wider intent of the Bill. The very existence of such markets would encourage fraud in a similar way to that which made the 1947 date unworkable. With a free flow of pre-1918 ivory, I think that everybody would start to reclassify ivory and the whole date would become blurred.
I am summarising—I am sure that Minister will do it better than me. We had a huge debate on this at Second Reading. I did not persuade the noble Lord; he did not persuade me, and I think that we will carry on the debate as the Committee proceeds. At the end of the day, it is about priorities. As far as I am concerned, the priority is the elephants living in the wild. On this issue, the noble Lord has his priorities wrong.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, due to illness in the family, my noble friend Lady Bakewell is not present for this part of Committee, although I believe that she will be along later. In her absence, I want to intervene briefly in support of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has started off Committee in fine, eloquent style, but the phrase “coach and horses” springs to mind as a result of what he had to say. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: the kind of amendment that the noble Lord is putting forward would serve only to introduce further ambiguity and uncertainty into a Bill which has been designed to make sure that we do not have the ambiguities and uncertainties of the current legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, had it absolutely right: the difficulties in identifying the difference between pre-1947 and pre-1918 ivory are rife. John Betjeman disapproved strongly of fish knives—
Lord De Mauley (Con)
I draw the noble Lord’s attention to Clause 7, for example, which already contemplates differentiating by date. The Government are obviously aware of a way in which this can be done.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will deal with that issue as far as this amendment is concerned, but to introduce further differentiation into the Bill is extremely unhelpful, particularly in the light of its intentions and the fact that the CITES convention will take place later next month. I do not think that that would be a particularly good symbol.
I am the proud owner of a set of fish knives—I do not believe that John Betjeman would have approved of them. I am firmly in the category that the noble Lord, Lord, Cormack, has identified as being caught by this provision. I am very relaxed about it. I do not believe one should be able to trade, deal or sell that kind of commodity. It is the sort of thing you pass on to your descendants. I very much hope this provision will remain part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I join all noble Lords in saying that I very much look forward to the early return of my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for later stages.
My noble friend’s amendments intend to allow pre-1918 ivory objects to be bought, sold and hired within the United Kingdom, regardless of whether they meet one of the exemptions. Indeed, my noble friend—and this has been raised already—used words such as “confiscation” and “loss of ownership”. These measures precisely do not affect the right to own, gift, inherit or bequeath ivory. They are precisely not for that purpose.
As this is the beginning of Committee stage, I reiterate the overriding purpose of this Bill. Its intention—and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also made this clear—is to introduce one of the strongest ivory bans in the world, with narrow and limited exemptions, to curtail the demand for ivory that currently threatens the elephant with extinction. As your Lordships know—a number of noble Lords have referred in different ways to the public consultation—there is overwhelming public support for this ban. I say to my noble friend in particular that we have worked extensively with conservation NGOs, the arts and antiques sector, and musician and museum sectors to help shape this Bill, and we believe it is a proportionate response.
The exemptions outlined in the Bill have been included to allow limited dealings in ivory to continue where they are unlikely to contribute to the poaching of elephants. To allow all pre-1918 ivory items to be bought, sold and hired, regardless of whether they meet one of the exemptions, would significantly undermine the aim of the Bill and the carefully balanced package of exemptions. My noble friend is, of course, conversant with Clause 2, which we will address in more detail later. We have specifically created an exemption so that pre-1918 ivory items that are of outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical value, and which are the rarest and most important examples of their type, can continue to be traded.
I suggest to my noble friend that his other amendment concerns the offences of buying or hiring ivory as the owner within the UK only. Subsection (4)(b) concerns selling and hiring ivory as the lender both in and outside of the United Kingdom. My noble friend and my noble friend Lord De Mauley have raised a number of issues about the antiques sector. A 2016 report by TRAFFIC, the wildlife monitoring network, on the UK’s domestic ivory trade, showed that consumers of UK antique ivory are increasingly from Asia, particularly China, Japan and Hong Kong. This constitutes a change since the last UK ivory market report in 2004, which found that most buyers were from Europe and the United States. This worrying shift demonstrates that the UK antique ivory market is increasingly connected to the Far East, where the demand for ivory is highest, further fuelling the demand for ivory, and its social acceptability.
I also want to refer to a point in the discussion between the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lord Cormack. As I mentioned at Second Reading, the 2010 report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime concluded:
“The trade in illicit ivory is only lucrative because there is a parallel licit supply”.
This is precisely why we are having to introduce a ban, with only tightly drawn exemptions that are unlikely to continue to fuel the illegal trade and poaching of elephants. To allow all pre-1918 ivory items to be traded would further perpetuate the demand for ivory and undermine the effectiveness of the ban. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said: we have got to bear down on the situation in which 20,000 elephants a year are being slaughtered. We saw only last week reports from Botswana of this slaughter continuing, and the status quo at the moment is simply not acceptable. This country has to lead. We have a responsibility to lead. We are one of the world’s largest exporters of ivory and we must act. So, for the reasons I have given, I am not able to support my noble friend’s amendment and I respectfully ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Cormack
I had hoped we might have a rather longer debate on this, but of course I listened very carefully to what my noble friend the Minister said and I obviously have no intention of dividing the House today. I believe very much in the unwritten convention in your Lordships’ House that it is better to have divisions on Report than in Committee. However, I shall certainly be framing amendments for Report because I have not been convinced by anything that my noble friend or the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, have said that we are assisting the elephants by forbidding the sale of genuinely antique ivory items. I just do not accept that, and although I accept that there have been consultations with the antique trade, with which I have no pecuniary connection and no interest to declare—I have bought the odd thing in an antique shop, although not ivory—I know that those who have been part of these negotiations have not been entirely convinced that their point of view has been really seriously taken on board.
I think that my noble friend must also realise that we are one country. Quite shortly, much to my regret, we will not be part of a European group of countries, and what will happen, as I have already quoted from the note from the chess collecting chairman, is that things will be sent abroad: they are going abroad quite quickly now. I think it is a pity that we are taking this real sledgehammer to this; nevertheless, there is no point in prolonging discussion now and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull
“( ) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this section shall be deemed as applying to bona fide insurance or re-insurance transactions involving UK-licensed insurers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a technical amendment designed to address various insurance and re-insurance problems.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register of the House, in particular as a director or trustee of several museums and in respect of the insurance world.
This is a technical amendment to do with some insurance issues, so I hope to gallop through it, as I am sure not many of your Lordships would be that interested. I should like to add my own thoughts to the messages to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, because I was going to start by citing something that he said in his Second Reading speech. He quoted a figure, which I have also seen, of there being somewhere between 2 million and 3 million objects that have an ivory content in the UK in personal collections and museum collections. He said that he felt that was an underestimate, and I agree with him that it probably is an underestimate. The UK is a heavy buyer of insurance. I can say with confidence that the majority of those objects are the subject of insurance, so I am talking about a large number of objects all round.
As I looked at the Bill, there were three areas where I felt there could be problems for the way in which the insurance world works today. The first was in simply paying a claim. I am sure that many of your Lordships have not made a claim and so may not realise this, but the point is that, when paying a claim, the insurer will pay out a sum of money, but the title of the object insured will transfer to the insurer. There would probably also be another agreement, a release agreement, between the insured and the insurer. Therefore, there is a tremendous amount of consideration moving and, certainly, the title of the object moving. That knowledge was with me as I read Clause 1(3), as I was very worried that the paying of the claim may be problematic under the way the Bill is currently drafted. For museums and private individuals, I thought that was regrettable.
Secondly, another thing that goes across to the successful claimant is a right of repurchase. Certainly all of the specialist insurance markets grant this right and I think all markets now in the UK grant it. This is a right whereby, if an object is stolen and comes back—quite a lot of stuff does come back, particularly the more valuable stuff, because if there are photographs of it, it is difficult for people to dispose of it—people have the opportunity to repurchase the object at the lower of the market value or the amount of money that was paid out in the insurance claim. For private individuals, that is often very attractive because many people are underinsured, so maybe they can buy something back that is worth more at a lower price. Certainly, for many private individuals, it is attractive because the sorts of things that are stolen are often things with great sentimental value to them. This is a very valuable right for private insurance. For the museum-insured area, which I am deeply involved with, it is important because often what is stolen is the key part of one or other of their collections, and it is very difficult to source replacement parts. I feel that this repurchase right is very difficult under Clause 1(3).
A third problem, which is much more technical, is to do with the way that insurance companies and Lloyd’s syndicates set themselves up, and that is that they move around the salvage rights within themselves. Naturally, this happens in a series of transactions that take place—most famously in the Lloyd’s syndicates, where there is a fresh syndicate every year—and so they move around these rights of repurchase further down. A Lloyd’s syndicate will need to be able to trade with a successor syndicate in order to preserve this right of repurchase. Of course, there are many latent rights of repurchase out there at the moment, which will all be covered, I assume, by this Bill. So this is not about fresh thefts but about stuff that comes back.
Those three issues were circulating in my mind, and I feel that there is a difficulty. I do not think it is the intention of the Bill to stop people from being able to rebuy their own stuff following an insurance loss. That can have nothing to do with the admirable intentions of this Bill, so I drafted a probing amendment, merely to just raise the debate, but not to settle on the precise language of how we deal with this problem that I have identified. I have limited it to providing some sort of route for just the 200 or so professional insurers in the UK. These are carriers who are all regulated by the FCA and who, I can assure your Lordships, if they saw any naughtiness, would be out with the fines book straightaway. I beg to move.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the noble Earl’s amendment would insert a declaratory statement into the Bill confirming that prohibitions in the Bill would not apply to insurance and reinsurance transactions. I am very grateful to him for our helpful conversation over the weekend, and I confirm that it is indeed the Government’s intention that insurance and reinsurance activities will be able to continue as usual.
As the noble Earl has pointed out, this sector is very important with regard to items containing ivory. We are mindful of the types of transactions that may occur, and indeed we are further investigating other types of transactions and the associated transfers of ownership and the considerations paid and received in the ordinary course of these transactions. We are therefore considering ways of making it clear that financial transactions associated with the insurance and reinsurance of ivory items are not prohibited by the Bill, and we look forward to working with the noble Earl and other noble Lords to ensure that that is the case.
I hope that, in the light of what I have said the noble Earl feels able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull
I am very grateful to the Minister, with whom I had a number of amusing conversations over the weekend that involved lawn-mowing as well. I think this is a very constructive approach, and I hope we will be able to deal with the matters quickly when we get to meet. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
“( ) Except in regard to sections 8 and 9, the exemptions referred to in subsection (6) do not apply in circumstances where the dealing in question has taken place online.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the sale of otherwise exempted items comprising or containing ivory from taking place online. This, alongside other measures in the Bill, would help to prevent illegal trade of ivory. The online ban would not apply to the items exempted under sections 8 and 9.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, there is ample evidence that illegal ivory trading frequently takes place online. The arguments against committing online trading have been rehearsed many times: the difficulty of policing online transactions; descriptions of ivory being disguised to avoid search-term filters; and the near impossibility of checking every parcel dispatched from the UK.
Surely all online dealing in ivory should be banned. Allowing only physical sales, combined with the exemption certificates and registration process, would considerably reduce illegal trade and make the enforcement authorities’ job far easier. A recent study published earlier this year by the University of Kent illustrates the problem. It found that, in fact, barely any ivory or other illegal wildlife products are being sold via the so-called dark net, where there is a flourishing criminal market in drugs and firearms. Instead, the researchers found that ivory is being sold openly on conventional auction sites, including eBay. Traders have exploited the previous complex rules, which were meant to restrict the trade in Britain to pre-1947 antiques but can act as a cover for the sale of items fashioned from poached elephant tusks.
Despite perfecting a prototype software scheme that can pinpoint potentially illegal ivory with 93% accuracy, the University of Kent team has been told by law enforcement agencies and wildlife protection groups that they cannot afford to fund its deployment on the front line. I very much hope the Minister will be able to look at that allegation by the University of Kent and give a response. Dr David Roberts, a conservation scientist at the University of Kent and co-author of the study into illegally traded wildlife, has been quoted as saying:
“The surface web is being used by criminals because they have found they can trade there for the most part with impunity. Unlike those selling drugs or guns, they don’t feel they have to move to the darknet. What is frustrating is that tackling this online trade does not seem to be priority. It falls between boots-on-the-ground enforcement against poaching in Africa and reduction of demand in south east Asia. We have had enforcement agencies and campaign groups say they would like to have our software as an enforcement tool but they don’t have the funding to progress it further”.
The fact is that the illegal wildlife trade is a rapidly evolving environmental crime that is expanding through e-commerce. Because of the nature of the internet, the detection and enforcement of online illegal wildlife trading has proven to be difficult and time-consuming, often based on manual searches through the use of keywords. This is aggravated by the fact that, as a result of scrutiny, traders in elephant ivory now use code words to disguise the trade, thus adding an additional level of complexity. Rather than blatantly advertising items as “elephant ivory”, online traders use alternative key words recognised by buyers, at least some of whom are likely to know that they may be purchasing illicit items.
In his letter after Second Reading, the Minister said—I will quote extensively:
“Several Noble Lords have called for a total ban on all online ivory deals, I understand the concerns that differentiating legitimate and illegitimate sales online can often be difficult, but we believe it would be disproportionate to ban online sales, given that existing regulations on other products such as alcohol and medication, which do pose a threat to human health do not have their online sale banned. The Bill has been drafted from the outset with both online and physical sales in mind. The Bill makes it clear that it will be an offence to cause or to facilitate a sale of ivory that either does not meet an exemption, or has not been properly registered or certified. This will apply equally to any website or online forum which hosts or facilitates an illegal sale. It will be the responsibility of any online forum to ensure that ivory items sold on its site are legitimate in exactly the same way we will expect of a high street shop or auction house”.
Those are very reasonable words and I am sure that the Minister was being utterly genuine when he talked about the need for proportionality. However, what assurance can the Minister give about the energy devoted to enforcement online? How will the online dealing ban be enforced in practice? Will the resources be in place? Otherwise, surely it will be necessary in due course, if not now, to have an online ban if it is seen simply to be the easiest way of ignoring the legislation and engaging in dealing in these ivory items.
I am pessimistic that any enforcement situation can cope with the sheer volume of trade online and be able to distinguish online between legitimate and illegitimate sales. I do not believe that the alcohol and medication examples that the Minister has given should be brought into account. This is a much more difficult situation. It is much more difficult to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate sales of ivory than in either of the two other cases that the Minister has cited. I hope the Minister will rethink the Government’s decision not to include online sales. I think an insistence that all sales were physical would make life a great deal easier. I beg to move.
Lord James of Blackheath (Con)
My Lords, I wholly support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. However, one serious aspect that may have been overlooked is a nasty little market which may escape the whole of this affair, and that is the casinos’ use of roulette balls. This is a very big, constantly renewing market. The life of a roulette ball in ivory is only about five weeks and they cost £100 each. They can only be obtained from the Far East at present through the dark market.
I do not know what the solution is, but we should not be ignorant of this big market. It is likely to continue and will be very persistent. The only alternative for a casino is to use a Teflon ball, which is fine but it bounces too much. It is too easy to use a Teflon ball which has a steel interior which can then be mixed up with a magnetisation of the roulette wheel’s rim and give easy distortion for fraud. This is why casinos do not want Teflon balls and they do want ivory balls. We should be on guard against this because it is going to be a big, dark market.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I think that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is intended to cover items described in Clause 7—those that contain de minimis quantities of ivory. In his remarks, he kept talking about “ivory items”. These are actually slightly different. They are not ivory items but other sorts of items containing an element of ivory which is integral to the whole. There are many more of those than there are pure ivory items.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I have sympathy with the amendment. I have nothing further to add but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has come up with a convincing set of arguments. I hope that the Minister will come up with some rather more powerful arguments than were contained in his letter.
Lord De Mauley
As noble Lords have heard, despite a ban on international trade in ivory, tens of thousands of elephants are killed each year for their tusks. It is a tragedy and every respected antique dealer would wholeheartedly agree that everything possible must be done to bear down on it. Having in an earlier phase of my life been the Minister responsible for the UK’s efforts to bear down on illegal wildlife trafficking, I now find myself as chairman of LAPADA, the art and antique dealers’ trade association and, as such, declare an interest. Although my remarks represent my own views, they are informed by what I have learned in that capacity, as well as that of a former Minister.
As with countless other businesses today, antiques are marketed and promoted online and professional antique dealers increasingly use the internet to sell antiques and works of art. Amendment 4 would be extremely unfair on some who may deal with exempt ivory. Furthermore, it is not necessary to give effect to the Bill. In addition, to underline the fact that it is unnecessary, I point out the inconsistency of exempting musical instruments from these restrictions. I take it that anyone advertising an item online who has been granted an exemption certificate, or who has registered the item under the Clause 10 provisions, would be advised to indicate the existence of the certificate or registration as part of their promotional material.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for raising this issue today. We touched upon it at Second Reading and noble Lords have referred to the letter from the Minister that we received in response to that. The noble Lord will know that we have considerable sympathy with the arguments that he has put forward this afternoon. The online sale of items containing ivory is undoubtedly the most difficult market to police. The Committee has already heard that the worst violations of existing restrictions take place online. It is a global trade, using global communications. As the noble Lord said, the poachers and middlemen have sophisticated communication networks, including codes and jargon to conceal the real nature of the goods being traded. This is happening globally, across borders. This is why, ultimately, we need a global response to close these markets down. It is an area for the UK Government alone to be effective in doing this.
We also know that, as the noble Lord said, we have limited resources to police these sales. This issue is covered in amendments to the Bill which we will come to later. I also like to think that the measures already in the Bill and the additional amendments we propose would at least bring the legitimate UK online trade under control. The requirement for exemption certificates; the need for registration and photographs; the oversight of professional institutions; the removal of the defence of ignorance for buyers and sellers and the tightening up of enforcement should help to deliver more watertight controls. I understand the argument about proportionality and we need to bear it in mind quite sensitively.
Although I am sympathetic to the noble Lord, I wonder if, at this time, we should let the current proposals run and then use the reviews we are proposing in later amendments to the Bill—for example, working with the National Wildlife Crime Unit and border police—to assess how effective the Bill has been. That would give us the opportunity to look at whether we still have an online problem. The onus is on the Minister to reassure the Committee that this is going to be effective in tackling online trade. Otherwise, the whole Bill will be effectively undermined if all the trade moves towards there.
I would like to think that the checks and balances are there. It may be that we have been proved wrong. I would like to hear more from the National Wildlife Crime Unit about whether it thinks it can manage within the existing constraints. If it feels it can do it, albeit it will probably need some extra resources—we are all well aware of that—then I am inclined to take it on trust at this moment. However, it is certainly an important issue to get right.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for initiating this debate on whether to ban certain types of exempted, and therefore legally saleable, ivory items through online channels. The noble Lord has read out much of my answer already but it does bear repeating. From the very outset, the Bill was drafted with online and offline sales in mind. The Bill prohibits all commercial activities in ivory, regardless of where those activities take place, subject, of course, to the exemptions in the Bill.
Equally, anyone who breaches the ban, be it online or not, will be committing an offence and will face the same range of sanctions, including a criminal sanction of up to five years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. There are a number of further provisions included in the Bill that will assist in tackling illegal online sales. It will be an offence to facilitate breaching the ban. Therefore, this would include, for example, a UK-based online sales forum which facilitates the sale by allowing sellers to advertise their item, make contact with buyers and accept payment.
In that example, those responsible for such online sales forums, which would include corporate bodies, would be found to be in breach of the ban if they could not show that they had taken reasonable steps to prevent an illegal sale taking place. These steps would include, for example, ensuring that the item for sale is exempt and had been registered or had an accompanying exemption certificate. We therefore expect such online forums to take all actions to ensure that they and their users act in compliance with the ban, in the same way that we expect offline channels to do the same. The Bill also prohibits the deliberate misrepresentation of ivory during a sale—for example, as bovine bone. This issue was raised by the noble Lord and it is very important. Both the seller and the buyer could be committing an offence if one or both of the parties knew or suspected that it is ivory.
Noble Lords will be aware that other items subject to restrictions, such as kitchen knives, are allowed to be traded online. Indeed, I am not aware of any item that is singled out for such a ban depending not on the legality of the sale but on the channel—that is, online or offline—through which the sale is transacted. We believe it would be disproportionate to completely ban the commercial dealing in exempt ivory items online and that it would shut off a relatively transparent means of monitoring the extent to which trading is happening online. As a noble Lord mentioned earlier, there are 2 million to 3 million items containing ivory and it would be utterly wrong to ban the sale or the legal trading of those items online. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord De Mauley pointed out, the auction houses use the online environment as a very valuable way of marketing the items they have for sale.
We agree that enforcement is extremely important. We cannot have online trading in ivory if we are unable to enforce properly. Online sales are a priority for the National Wildlife Crime Unit regarding the illegal wildlife trade. There will be much more on enforcement and funding in due course. However, this issue is so important that I will recommend that we write to noble Lords on enforcement, on what we can do in the online environment and on the resources we intend to put into that enforcement.
I turn briefly to the point raised by my noble friend Lord James of Blackheath about roulette balls. I understand that he has been in touch with officials about this and that they have written to him. These balls will be caught by the ban but, as was mentioned, there are alternatives. I hope with this explanation I have reassured the noble Lord that we have considered—and, indeed, are considering—the matter of online sales and that he will therefore see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, can the Minister explain how we can take action against a forum that is based, say, in the Russian Federation? She talked a lot about the ability to prosecute people for contravening the law—the provisions of the Bill—but it is not clear how we would be able to take action against forums domiciled overseas.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My noble friend is quite right. If a forum is domiciled overseas, it will be up to enforcement to look at those advertising their wares and those who are looking to buy those items. However, we should also consider that in due course, the items for sale online will either be registered or will have an exemption certificate. We will be able to see clearly whether those items are legitimate, and that additional level of security for buyers and sellers is the most important thing when it comes to online sales.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister. In particular, that last sentence was extremely important in the circumstances, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made the same point: that that will be the essence of the online sale as well. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his intervention and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her positive words. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, the amendment is meant to do what it says on the tin: certain of the exemptions are exempt, and certain others are not, and Clauses 8 and 9 are excluded from the ban on online sales for a purpose.
To come back to what the Minister said, I am of course reassured about the provisions of the Bill, and it is precisely the resources and the activity around enforcement which are absolutely crucial. A provision about banning online sales is not disproportionate if enforcement is inadequate. If enforcement is adequate, then of course it would be disproportionate, but this is in a sense designed to prevent the mischief of online sales taking place without adequate enforcement. I look forward to the letter from the Minister. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned the National Wildlife Crime Unit and other aspects of enforcement, and I very much hope that they will be fully apprised of the importance of making sure that online sales are scrutinised and that these keywords—these coded words—are understood and combated in accordance with the research from the University of Kent. This is not some figment of the imagination of those who are against ivory poaching but respectable research, and we should pay heed to it. I look forward to the letter from the Minister and obviously I reserve the right to come back on Report if necessary. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord De Mauley
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I will deal with Amendments 5, 6, 8 and 9 in this group, and start with Amendment 5. Clause 2 represents a feature of the Bill that has resulted in the largest number of concerned comments from people who handle antiques, so it is no coincidence that we have today several amendments that address this clause.
The dateline chosen for Clause 2—for objects of,
“outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical value”—
is, as I say, causing considerable concern. According to Clause 36(3)(a), only cultural objects made before 1 January 1918 would be eligible for an exemption certificate. It is mystifying that 1918 has been used for this exemption when it appears that even an ordinary upright piano made in 1965, with keys faced in ivory, would qualify for exemption, yet a great work of art created by a leading artist from the 1920s or 1930s would not. As things stand, no items from the Art Deco movement would gain an exemption certificate. Art Deco is greatly celebrated in the fields of architecture and artistic design, and in 2003, the Victoria and Albert Museum devoted a major exhibition to the subject.
The Minister in another place has previously expressed the desire not,
“to unduly affect artistic and cultural heritage”.—[Official Report, Commons, Ivory Bill Committee, 14/06/18; col. 98.]
Is my noble friend the Minister aware that modern British art of the 20th century, by artists both living and dead, is a thriving, distinctively British and well-respected genre? On 20 June, the auctioneer Christie’s devoted its entire day’s sale to the subject. The sculptor Richard Garbe worked in a number of different media in the 1930s, including bronze and ivory. His monumental work includes sculpture in the collection of the National Museum of Wales in Cardiff, and many of his works would be considered pre-eminent by the panel that considers acceptance of historical objects in lieu of tax. The effect of the 1918 cut-off date would be to prevent his great works being sold or exported by their owners.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 7 and 11. I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord De Mauley has said and I will not speak at length because I made many similar points when I introduced my earlier amendment. However, it is terribly important that we do not unwittingly pass into law an Act of Parliament that would, as its inevitable consequence, lead to the destruction of part of the fabric of our rich artistic heritage and civilisation. That is something which we should all take very seriously.
We should also take seriously the point made by my noble friend Lord De Mauley about religious significance, not just in the Christian context but in that of many religions. Of course, in the European and Christian context we should remember the school of ivory carvers that existed in Dieppe for centuries and produced, among other things, some wonderful devotional objects. They are part of the warp and weft of domestic civilisation in Europe. Just as in our churches we would throw up our hands in horror at the thought of the despoiling of monuments and other wonderful objects which happened in the 16th and 17th centuries at the time of the Reformation and the English Civil War, surely we in the 21st century do not want to connive in the despoiling of domestic objects of devotion such as those made in Dieppe.
My two amendments have a similar aim to that of my noble friend Lord De Mauley in that I would delete the words “outstandingly high” so that that paragraph in Clause 2(2) would refer to the item being of,
“artistic, cultural or historical value”.
I would of course accept “religious value” as well. That is much more objective, much less subjective, and easier to determine. In Amendment 11 I would take out the word “important” and replace it with “significant” because again that is a little less subjective and thus easier to determine.
When I spoke earlier in moving Amendment 1, I referred to the fact that there is a different application for what is an item of museum quality in my native city of Lincoln than there would be in London. There is nothing right or wrong about that, it is just a fact, and we do not wish this Bill to penalise smaller museums in places like Lincoln at the expense of London. Of course I want wonderfully important objects that naturally would go to the London museums to continue to do so—they house our great national collections. Equally, however, items from historic families in Lincolnshire, although they might be less important, nevertheless in the context of Lincolnshire history are of incalculable wealth. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will recognise the force of the many points made by my noble friend Lord De Mauley and that within this group of amendments there are things that could improve the Bill without in any way diluting its central purpose.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 9 and I declare my interest as a former president of the British Antique Dealers’ Association, which is still superbly run by the secretary-general, Mr Mark Dodgson.
We are all, and when I say “all” I mean in this Chamber and outside, appalled by the disgraceful poaching of elephants in Africa and elsewhere. The reports last week of the slaughter of so many elephants in Botswana are beyond belief. Although the Government announced extra funding last July, in the joint statement from the Foreign Office, Defra and DfID, I wonder whether even more direct help can be provided to range states in Africa. I hope all your Lordships agree that we want Britain to play its part in protecting elephants.
When I spoke during the Second Reading, I expressed the view that the Bill provides a framework for preventing the sale of modern ivory trinkets in this country, which is desirable, but we surely must bring a sense of proportion to how we protect elephants. As Clause 2 is presently worded, the requirement that cultural property may be sold only if it is of “outstandingly high” cultural value is so restrictive that it will have a damaging effect on the cultural life of this country and will prevent the sale of many items of historical significance.
The allegation that the UK is supporting a large commercial ivory trade conjures images in the public’s mind of a trade in ivory as a modern commodity, which is how it is thought of in Africa and Asia. I am not aware, however, of any evidence to suggest to any significant extent that modern poached ivory is imported into this country, offered for sale here or exported. I will explain this further since this is important to grasp in the context of this clause.
We have already heard from my noble friend Lord De Mauley that the number of worked ivory antiques exported from the UK is not as large as some of us imagine. Additionally, the TRAFFIC report made clear that large-scale seizures of African ivory tusks and bangles at UK airports are relatively rare. Furthermore, when they occurred, they represented items in transit to other countries, not destined for buyers or workshops here. Of course, some modern ivory carvings may have made their way to the United Kingdom, which TRAFFIC says are brought here by private individuals from trips abroad, not as part of smuggling rings. In the context of the hundreds of thousands of antique items incorporating ivory owned by people in Britain, there is no evidence that modern poached ivory is prevalent. Furthermore, as the antiques trade is aware, any seizures of exported ivory objects that occur do so because someone is attempting to export them without the required CITES permits, not because they represent examples of poached ivory.
Lucy Vigne, a conservationist and ivory trade researcher working in east Africa, is the author of a number of respected reports, including one recently for Save the Elephants looking at China and the trade in ivory there. She is on record in the press as saying that:
“This recent issue in the West has been taking away valuable time and resources from dealing with the big issues we are facing urgently”,
by which she meant,
“the trade in new ivory in Asia and poaching in Africa”.
In case the Committee feels that I have diverted from the points in hand, I say that I am not aware of anyone having demonstrated that the UK is awash with poached ivory. Precisely the same result would be achieved without sacrificing so many cultural items. For this reason, I support this amendment proposed by my noble friends Lord Carrington of Fulham and Lord De Mauley. I add that the debate is not “elephants or history”; both need preserving and should be dealt with together to be successful.
I was recently written to by Mary Kitson, who is honorary secretary of the Fan Circle International, an antique fan study group whose membership includes collectors, dealers, museum curators, conservators and art historians. She is extremely concerned about the impact that the Bill will have on this delightful part of our social history, and indeed the history of fashion. She explained that a collector of antique fans is likely to include in their collection fans whose sticks are made from a variety of materials such as mother of pearl, ivory, wood or metal. A fan’s sticks give strength to what is termed the leaf—the part of the fan that is exposed when the fan is fully opened. Fans with ivory sticks certainly comprise more than 10% ivory.
Other items of our social history include games that incorporate ivory components. The immediately obvious example is Victorian chess pieces, as mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord Cormack. Then there are children’s games such as bagatelle, where the small balls can be fashioned from ivory, or the cup-and-ball game bilboquet, where the cup can likewise be made of ivory. Some of your Lordships may argue that these items could be given to museums, but they would not welcome thousands of duplicates. What is more, observing objects located behind a rope cordon or in a glass cabinet is not always the best way to appreciate them properly. There is no substitute for owning and handling antique objects in one’s own home, which is one of the best ways to interact with and appreciate our history. If we cannot recognise properly the way in which different materials were used historically, we can lose touch with our past.
It is very sad that people should even contemplate exchanging original materials in genuine antique objects with modern substitutes. The recent replacement of ivory with ivorine, a form of celluloid, in a Chippendale cabinet is a case in point. I worry about where all this is heading. Next, someone will suggest that bone or leather should be outlawed. Therefore, I support the proposal that exemption certificates should be issued for not only objects of outstandingly high historical value but also for those that are of the same calibre as objects found in our officially recognised museums. This would include not just the British Museum or the National Museum of Scotland but other wonderful collections, such as those of the Fan Museum in Greenwich or the Museum of Childhood in Bethnal Green.
Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I want to make a few brief comments. When I last intervened, I should have explained that I am the president of the British Art Market Federation.
I commend the introduction in Amendment 8 of the word “religious” because there is too much religious bigotry about. It is important to respect other peoples’ views as well as thinking that your own are important. I should explain that I quite like what my children call “old stuff”. For a number of years, I had the very good fortune of chairing the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art. One thing that struck me during that time was how tastes change. Can my noble friend the Minister ensure that the way in which these things are examined recognises that tastes can change? Sometimes, items that are considered of enormous global significance were more or less unrecognised even just a few years ago. That is very important to the way in which these arrangements—which will inevitably be capricious and arbitrary to some degree—are exercised.
The Duke of Wellington (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being able to be present at Second Reading. Clearly, the Bill is a most important piece of legislation, as expressed at Second Reading and this afternoon. I am sure that everybody in this House supports the main objectives. I read the report of the Second Reading in Hansard, and I particularly commend the speech of my noble friend Lord Hague, who clearly, when he was Foreign Secretary, contributed significant movement to this attempt to control the undesirable trade in recently slaughtered elephant ivory.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 10 in this group. I rather resent the implication that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I do not understand the significance of beautiful works of art. That is clearly not the case. The debate that we are having is about—and we are repeating this time and again—how we can stop the illegal poaching of elephants to create, if you like, imitations of beautiful works of art.
We take a very different view from other noble Lords who have spoken to amendments in this group who have in some way wanted to water down the application of the Bill. We believe that the current definition of,
“outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical value”,
is too subjective and too widely framed and therefore too difficult to apply with any certainty. We therefore believe that we should set the bar higher and make the definition clearer. These categories were all debated during the consultation and were framed by examining global best practice in this sector in terms of how you apply and enforce these definitions. They are designed to cover items that, when sold, do not directly or indirectly fuel the poaching of elephants, so we are back to that issue again.
We are concerned that the test has been toned down, given that there was an earlier form of wording. The earlier wording talked about the “rarest and most important” pieces, which appears to have been changed to a consideration of an item’s rarity and the extent to which it appears to be an important example of its type. Our concern is that that is difficult phraseology to apply with any certainty.
It is important that we get this wording right. If we do not, there may be other consequences that do not help what we are trying to achieve. We know that the sale of items that seem to be important and the best of their type is fuelling the market in Asia by making some items more desirable. Those who cannot afford the items classified as best of their type go out and try to find imitations, which is where we come back full circle to the reason for the Bill and the need to ensure that whatever we do does not carry on fuelling the demand for newly poached ivory. Despite what noble Lords have said, there is a link between antique and modern ivory and, therefore, a need to close that market. As I have said, the exemptions in the Bill have to be rigorously defined and enforced.
Although I shall not go to the wall on this, I would expect religious items to be covered by the current definitions. I am not convinced that we need a separate category; I would have thought that the cultural definitions covered that.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said that he was worried about local and regional significance not being taken into account. Again, I think that the professionals assessing whether items meet the grade for an exemption certificate would be expected to take account of those local variations rather than just assuming that everything has a value only in the London markets.
Noble Lords are right that whatever we do in the UK is only part of tackling the problem. In many ways, we are only the middle people in an international trade that is passing through our country. That is why the Secretary of State is right in wanting to use the forthcoming international wildlife crimes conference as a means for the UK to put pressure on other countries. There is no point in us trying to do it in isolation; we have to make sure that other countries follow suit, as a number already have. This legislation is only part of the jigsaw, but we have to play our part in all this. To do that, we have to get rigorous, enforced definitions right. I am not sure that we have got them right at the moment and worry that there is too much room for subjectivity, but I am sure that the Minister will reassure me and others that the current definitions hold up.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, my noble friends’ amendments would widen the scope of Clause 2 to allow more items to fall under this category of exemption, while the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, strives to tighten it. As noble Lords will know from Second Reading, the Government came forward with the current set of exemptions in discussion with the antiques and museum sector.
The Bill’s intention is to prohibit commercial activities concerning ivory in the UK and the import and re-export of ivory for commercial purposes. My noble friend Lady Rawlings and other noble friends mentioned the UK’s market. Between 2005 and 2014, 31% of ivory exported from the EU for commercial purposes was from the UK; the number of worked ivory items exported to mainland China increased from 2,000 to 11,000 between 2010 and 2014, and the UK Border Force recorded 602 seizures of illegal ivory items moving into and out of the UK in the four years between 2013 and 2017.
This is the scenario in which we exist and why what we have had before is simply not good enough. I emphasise that we intend this to be one of the toughest bans in the world. We are clear as a Government that this is the right thing to do in terms of leadership. We also recognise—I feel that my noble friends in particular as owners of ivory see this differently from me—that the public interest of saving the elephant has the supremacy on these matters. However, we have sought as a responsible and reasonable Government to ensure exemptions that we think are proportionate. That is why the limited and targeted exemption from the prohibition on dealing for pre-1918 ivory items which are of outstanding,
“artistic, cultural, or historical value”,
have a rarity value and are important examples of their type is legitimate.
As has been said before, it is not the Government’s intention to affect our artistic and cultural heritage unduly. This exemption recognises that a certain stratum of ivory items are traded not because they are made of ivory, but due to their artistry or rarity. I assure both my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that the Government have worked extensively with conservation NGOs and the arts and antiques sector to shape this exemption. We believe that the clause, as it stands, is a proportionate approach and any change would undermine this carefully balanced position. Indeed, the chairman of the Society of Fine Art Auctioneers welcomed the distinction our proposals make,
“between the market for ivory as a substance … and the market for works of art whose significance lies in their status as works of art, not for what they are made of”.
The criteria which must be met for an item to qualify under this exemption are intentionally narrow and will be detailed in statutory guidance. My noble friends Lord De Mauley, Lord Cormack and Lord Inglewood referred to religious significance being a key factor for consideration when determining whether to issue an exemption certificate. We consider religious significance to be a factor of both cultural and historic significance—a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, made—so we do not believe that it is necessary to reference it separately in the Bill.
On the rationale behind the 100 years backstop, this date has been chosen as it is in line with the commonly agreed definition of “antique” as being items that are 100 years old. It represents 100 years before the Bill was introduced. The amendment from my noble friend Lord De Mauley seeks to widen this exemption to items,
“suitable ... to the collection of a qualifying museum”.
We believe that this is too broad a definition to be included as part of what is intended to be a clearly defined exemption. It is worth noting that any accredited museum may purchase an item of ivory whether or not it meets one of the categories of exemption under Clause 9. This ensures that the decision to purchase rests with the relevant experts at accredited museums.
I repeat that the rationale behind this Bill is the need to curtail the demand for ivory that is driving the disastrous poaching of elephants in increasing numbers. I noted in my Second Reading speech and, indeed, today, that this demand is fuelled by both the illicit and the licit trade. This is what the African leaders are asking to do. It is what is coming out of the UN report. It is not a Minister just saying it. People in Africa and the UN are saying to us: “Please will you bear down on your licit trade because it is part of the problem”.
I am sorry to disappoint my noble friends, but I am sure they will understand that this is designed as a narrowly drawn exemption. I am not in a position to accept the amendments and I emphasise that a great deal of attention has been paid to what are tightly defined packages of exemptions, of which this is one. I believe that the Government have produced something that is proportionate and on those grounds I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I want to follow up on the figures the Minister has given us. I apologise that I could not take part in Second Reading, but I am listening very carefully to the debate today. If I heard him correctly, he said that 31% of exports within the EU came from the UK. That struck me, and I wonder if it is possible to know whether those items that were exported would have fallen under the category of,
“high artistic, cultural or historical value”,
or whether they were much more ordinary, everyday exports. That might have a bearing on some of our discussions. I do not expect him to answer now, but it might be helpful to those of us who are concerned and feel sympathetic towards some of the amendments if that information could be made available.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I will, of course, look into what my noble friend said and write a letter, which I will place in the Library.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not giving my counsel on this group of amendments: I am conflicted out, but it has nothing to do with ivory.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend the Minister said and I shall read it in Hansard as well. I did not hear him or, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, address, for example, the matter of the greatly respected art deco movement, which is all post-1918 and therefore not covered by the 1918 exemption, or the misleading 2016 export figures that are often trotted out. I just hope that the Government know what they are doing. I shall not press these amendments today; I reserve the right to bring them back on Report, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Victims Strategy
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Ministry of Justice. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement. Today, the Secretary of State and I are launching the Government’s victims strategy. which sets out our vision for victims of crime in England and Wales. That vision is one of a justice system that supports even more victims to speak up, with the certainty that they will be understood, that they will be protected, and that they will be supported, whether or not they report a crime and regardless of their circumstances or background. However, no single department, agency, or emergency service alone can provide the services victims rightly expect to receive, as shown by recent major incidents such as the Grenfell Tower fire and terrorist attacks in London and Manchester.
To truly deliver on our vision we must all work together, and that is why we have today published, for the first time, a cross-government victims strategy, further delivering on this Government’s commitment to ensure that victims of crime get the support they need. This strategy is the latest milestone in improving the support for victims and builds on important progress over the last few years, such as the establishment of the first Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in 2006, the appointment of the first Victims’ Commissioner to champion the interests of victims and witnesses in 2010, and the publication of Getting it Right for Victims and Witnesses: The Government Response in 2012, setting out the Government’s approach for making sure that victims and witnesses get the support they need. The victims strategy consolidates and builds on that progress but recognises that more needs to be done. I want to thank and pay tribute to all those victims, groups and experts who have willingly shared their experiences and sat on the victims’ panel and their work, and to my predecessor, who initiated this work.
The nature of crime is changing and we must adapt our response to meet that challenge. While overall crime has fallen, some of the most serious crimes have risen. Serious violent crime has increased and reporting of sexual offending has also risen. In the year ending March 2018, there was a 24% increase in reported sexual offences compared to the previous year. The message from victims is clear: they want to be treated with dignity, humanity, and compassion; they want clear, timely and accurate information about what is happening with their cases from day one; and they want the opportunity and support to make their voices heard as justice is done. To help achieve this, the strategy sets out a system-wide response to improving the support offered to all victims of crime throughout the criminal justice process, and incorporates actions from all criminal justice agencies, including the police, CPS and the courts. We must ensure that those who are a victim of crime do not become a victim of the process.
First, we want to strengthen the victims’ code and make it fit for the future. Our data tell us that fewer than 20% of victims are even aware of the code. Those who are often find it too lengthy, too confusing, with too many agencies involved. We will therefore revise the code, making it more user-friendly, reducing contact points, and strengthening entitlements in key areas such as the victim personal statement and support for victims of mentally disordered offenders. We will test the proposed changes to the code in a public consultation in early 2019 and aim to have a revised code in place by the end of 2019.
We have also reaffirmed our manifesto commitment to a victims’ law. The consultation will also consider how best to enshrine victims’ entitlements in law and the detail of the necessary legislation, and will include boosting the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, who plays a vital role in holding those agencies to account already. I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lady Newlove for all her work over almost six years to promote and protect the interests of victims and witnesses.
The criminal injuries compensation scheme must reflect the changing nature of crime. We will therefore be reviewing the entire scheme, with a particular focus on how we treat the victims of child sexual abuse and terrorism. That will include examining eligibility criteria and abolishing the arbitrary and unfair ‘same roof’ rule so that victims can get the compensation they are rightly due.
From Hillsborough to Grenfell, there have been too many failures to properly support those affected by disasters. So, we have today in this strategy set out our purpose for an independent public advocate and have in tandem published a consultation on the detail of the role, supporting bereaved families so that those failures cannot be repeated and we can properly support victims from the beginning of a disaster right through to the application of justice and beyond.
Building on the work we commenced earlier this year to improve the parole process, the strategy sets out how we will improve communication and support for victims during what can be for many a difficult time when memories of crimes committed years ago are relived. We will simplify the victim contact scheme and improve the quality of communication. We will make it easier for victims to make victim personal statements at parole hearings, and roll-out revised training for victim liaison officers, so that they are better equipped and prepared to support victims through parole hearings. This can and should ensure that past failings can never be repeated.
The strategy highlights the extra funding that we are providing for victims, including increasing spending to improve services and pathways for survivors and victims of sexual violence and abuse, including spending £8 million on interventions to ensure that support is available to children who witness domestic abuse. Some of the other measures are: improved training for the police, including guidance on supporting victims through the interview process and collecting evidence; trialling body-worn cameras for taking victim personal statements so that victims have a choice in how their story is heard; expanding support for families bereaved by gang violence—the recent spate of gang-related violence, particularly in London, has shone a spotlight on the devastation that gun and knife crime can cause to families, and we will be bringing in new funding for advocacy support for those affected by domestic homicide—and new guidance on pre-trial therapy to reduce the perception that it will damage the prosecution case.
In developing the strategy we have engaged extensively with victims, victims’ groups and the Victims’ Commissioner. This has ensured that the strategy is informed by those who have had direct experience of being a victim as well as those with front-line expertise. The strategy is not a quick fix. It is about building on the work to date so that we can better support victims in the future, and it is about giving them the confidence that, no matter their background, their individual circumstances or the crime that has been committed against them, the support that they need will be available.
This is the first time that we have looked in such detail and in such a joined-up way at how we treat victims in the wake of crime. This strategy is a marker for the way that we see ourselves as a nation—one that offers dignity, empathy and compassion to people when they are at their most vulnerable. It is something on which there is broad consensus across this House. Delivery of the strategy will now commence in earnest as we continue to progress towards a system that supports even more victims to speak up by giving them the certainty that they will be understood, supported and protected throughout their journey”.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I join him in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who is not in her place today, on her role in representing victims. I am sure all noble Lords will recognise the great contribution that she has made over the last few years.
Welcome though the publication of a victims strategy is, as my honourable friend Gloria De Piero pointed out in the House of Commons, it comes three years after being promised and in the shape of secondary legislation rather than the primary legislation envisaged. Even now, as we have heard, further consultation is to take place—for example, in relation to the victims’ code and the creation of the post of independent public advocate. Could the Minister indicate the nature of such consultation and its potential timescale?
Will the Government review the position in relation to judicial review where the cuts to legal aid over the last few years have in some cases prevented the pursuit of justice? The Statement is made on the same day that the Metropolitan Police have revealed a drop in the investigation of serious crimes, including sexual offences and violence. How is this supposed to help the victims of such brutality?
We are all aware of the enormous strain on police forces up and down the country, not least in London. There is no indication of additional funding to meet the challenges in the rise of serious crime, including violent crime and sexual offences. Indeed, the Police Superintendents’ Association is warning of a “perpetual state of crisis”. Surely this is unacceptable.
We welcome the promise to revise the victims’ code. How will that exercise be carried out, and what is the timescale envisaged? We also welcome the proposed changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Again, could the Minister indicate the process and timescale for that exercise? We also support the idea of an independent public advocate in major disaster cases. The experience of these over the years has been, to put it mildly, very unsatisfactory for the many people involved in some of those disasters.
What is the estimated cost of the changes, and where will it be paid from? Will the Minister confirm that it will not be financed by cuts in other areas of the justice system? I remind the Minister that the female offender strategy, for example, was underfunded by £15 million. Will the Government look again at their funding of that important initiative?
The Minister described for the first time a cross-government victim strategy. To what extent will other departments be involved? I presume that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care and, of course, the Home Office will all have a role. Will the custodial and probation services be involved in the approach to the new environment being created for the victims of crime? In dealing with offenders they will, I hope, be promoting the need for offenders to avoid such conduct in future, particularly where they have been involved in offences of this kind.
The proposals in the Statement are welcome as far as they go but will come to little without adequate funding and adequate engagement with all interested parties. I look forward to seeing how the proposals develop in practice, particularly in terms of adequate funding across the piece envisaged by the Statement. We look forward to that and I hope that the department succeeds in persuading the Treasury that investing in the ideas in the Statement and presumably to be debated across the justice system will be adequately met. Without that, any hope of change will be lost in practice.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we too welcome the publication of the victims strategy and I join the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in thanking the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. The strategy certainly builds on the work done by government, by agencies across the criminal justice system over a number of years and by campaigners. I join in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for her work and also mention the work of my noble friend Lady Brinton in this area.
The measures to strengthen the victims’ code are extremely necessary. It needs revision. We accept that there should be consultation before revision, but it needs to be made easier to understand, easier to access and there needs to be a great deal more awareness of the existence of the code and its provisions among members of the public. The aim should be to ensure support and co-ordination of that support across the criminal justice system. It is also right that the Government propose boosting the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner to hold the agencies to account. However, the main commitment of the victims strategy is to enshrine victims entitlements into a victims law. We look forward to the consultation as to how that will be framed.
I mention in passing two further points that I have picked up. The involvement of victims in the parole process plainly needs to be increased. We need to put behind us the failures of the system of the type that led to the decision in the Worboys case and to the feeling among the public that they had been let down by an inadequate and secretive process.
I also mention the proposed improvements to the criminal injuries compensation scheme which are extremely necessary. I welcome the proposed abolition of the absurd “same roof” rule, whereby victims were debarred from compensation if they lived under the same roof as the person who perpetrated violence against them; very often they lived under the same roof only because they were forced to do so by financial deprivation.
We are left with one very serious area of concern: the legal enforceability of the victims strategy. It does not commit to imposing legally enforceable duties on the agencies involved, justiciable at the instance of victims. It pledges to hold agencies to account through improved reporting, monitoring and transparency on whether victims are in fact receiving their entitlements, and to make the responsibilities of the agencies clearer. However, it is more likely that the victims strategy will succeed in ensuring that agencies meet their obligations, and victims receive their entitlements, if those agencies can be held legally accountable to victims. Will the Minister assure us that the consultation on the victims law will explore ways in which legal enforceability might be achieved? The victims strategy is a good one, but to make victims’ rights a reality needs resources, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, pointed out. It also needs the victims law to have real teeth.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am most obliged for the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Marks. I understand their expressions of concern about various areas of the strategy which are going to be the subject of consultation. I sense a perception, across the House, that we need to move forward on this matter and that we may be moving in the right direction, without looking at the detail that we are immediately concerned with.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised a point about the conduct of the Metropolitan Police regarding certain matters of prosecution and the pursuit of certain investigations. That is clearly an operational matter on which I cannot comment. Ultimately, the conduct of the Metropolitan Police in that regard is a matter for the commissioner and the Mayor of London. I turn to the other matters raised. First, we intend to amend the victims’ code to address the questions of complexity and accessibility that were referred to. We hope to consult on that in early 2019 and intend that an amended code is in place by the end of that year.
Both noble Lords touched on the victims law. There is already key legislation in place to support victims but we want to go further. It is clearly important that new legislation should be pursued as rapidly as is reasonably possible. We are committed to consulting on the detail of the victims law and that consultation will take place in 2019. We will work closely with the parliamentary authorities to identify legislative slots once we are clearer on what proposals there will be for legislation. We must make sure not to put the cart in front of the horse. We want to complete the consultation process, determine what legislative measures are going to be taken and then decide how best to take that forward.
On the point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I stress that we do not want to pre-empt the consultation but we wish to carefully consider, among other things, strengthening enforcement of the victims’ code, to make sure that victims receive the services that they are entitled to and that it is more than just black letters on a piece of paper. That is at the forefront of our minds. We also wish to look at strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, and the consultation will explore increasing those powers so that she can better hold government to account in these matters.
I will touch on one or two of the other issues raised. First, again we wish to consult on the criminal injuries compensation scheme; that is likely to be in early 2019. We understand the need to look at the “same roof” issue, and I touched on that in the Statement. Clearly, we will have to consider how this scheme can better serve victims of child sexual abuse and explore, among other things, the concerns raised and recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which recently made its interim report.
Regarding the independent public advocate, as noble Lords will be aware, we have launched that consultation today and that will close at the beginning of December this year. We would hope then to publish a government response to the consultation process in March 2019. Clearly, it is important to take this forward to ensure that after tragic events such as Grenfell or the Manchester bombing, there is a party in place who can take an overview of where and when parties who are bereaved, who are victims, have been given—or should have been given—the opportunity to be heard and considered.
Finally, on parole, which was touched upon, steps clearly have to be taken to address what occurred following the Worboys case, and the concerns expressed about, in particular, the victim contact scheme and the way in which victim liaison officers may deal with victims in that context. We hope to have a training programme rolled out by the end of 2018 and are looking at changes to the code by the end of 2019 concerning that. We are particularly concerned to ensure that victims will be properly consulted in the context of the parole process. Again, I would not wish to pre-empt the consultation process. We are alive, however, to the need to ensure that change and improvement is made. With that, I hope I have responded to the points made by noble Lords. I welcome their contributions to the debate and to the consultations that will follow.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister and the Government for finally announcing this victims strategy and consultation document. Nearly two years ago, in December 2016, your Lordships’ House voted on strengthening the victims’ code and encoding it in law, and we supported making sure that the agencies had to deliver that code. Noble Lords will remember that the matter went back to the Commons and the Minister returned to your Lordships’ House in January 2017 saying that a victims strategy and proposals would be published within six months and implemented by the end of 2017. We are running a bit behind that schedule but in the interim I compliment the previous Victims Minister for coming to consult with a large number of victims’ groups. Over the past 18 months, I met him and some of them and the time has not been wasted.
I will not repeat the comments made by other noble Lords on the strengths of the strategy. For those groups I have been working with, it is not simply a matter of fewer than 20% of victims being aware of the victims’ code, as I am afraid that there are a significant number of people working in the criminal justice system itself who are not aware of the details and who do not assist victims. I am reminded of one victim saying that when she reported her case of rape, the alleged perpetrator was given breaks from questioning, tea breaks and meal breaks, but there was absolutely nothing—not even a glass of water—provided for her as a victim when giving her statement. That is the sort of fundamental misunderstanding happening at the front line of the criminal justice system at the moment for victims, and we absolutely must make sure that it is changed.
I also echo the congratulations to the Victims’ Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. I welcome the new support and strengthening proposed for her role, but it will all be utterly worthless unless there is a duty on the agencies to deliver the victims’ code and the new proposed victims law. I note with some concern that on page 18 of the strategy the words used are,
“improved reporting, monitoring and transparency on whether victims are receiving entitlements”.
We will not make progress until all parts of the criminal justice system have to deliver the victims’ code and a proposed victims law for all victims.
I will raise one other point, on a final omission. At every meeting of the victims’ forum that has met in Parliament over the two years, we have heard the organisation Murdered Abroad speak eloquently. There is a hole in the current system for victims whose family members have been murdered abroad, and the British system back here, even through the coroners’ court system, completely fails them. The Foreign Office does what it can, but at the moment there is no link at all back into our criminal justice system, and I hope that as part of the consultation the Government will seriously look at mending this hole.
Lord Keen of Elie
Again, I am obliged for the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on this matter. While we may appear to be slightly behind schedule, I am relieved by her suggestion that time time has not been wasted. There is a concern to ensure that we take this forward as rapidly as possible but that we do it in the best-informed way possible. We will of course look at the scope of legislation that we will take forward to ensure that powers are available—whether they are direct legal powers or powers for the Victims’ Commissioner—which can be employed to ensure that all relevant parties are in a position where they are not only capable of enforcing the victims’ code but understand their obligation to do so as well.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, reference has been made to an increase in the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, about which I am delighted, but I am not clear what they will be. Could my noble and learned friend flesh it out for us?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the intention is that the consultation should do that, and I will not pre-empt the consultation process.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to welcome this Statement, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Newlove. I will spare her blushes—we were all speaking about her just before she took her place in the Chamber, but I am sure that she will read Hansard and realise that the whole House pays tribute to the work she has been doing over a number of years. Can my noble and learned friend say something at the Dispatch Box which will send out a message to victims of sexual violence, and specifically to young girls who were children at the time they were subjected to sexual exploitation? We have seen the cases across the country. What will these new measures do for them, how will they be taken seriously, and how will the experience—which, sadly, is sometimes quite horrific—of people subjected to these crimes be different?
Lord Keen of Elie
I thank my noble friend Lady Warsi for her observations. With regard to that question, the whole idea is that the victims’ code should first be made more accessible, that victims should be aware of its existence, and that those who engage with the victims should be properly aware, not only of its existence but of the way in which it ought to be implemented. Victims should be able to pause, consider and then come forward, in many instances seeking guidance on how they should go about making their complaints, and those complaints should be received sensibly, reasonably and openly. It is a difficult area, particularly where one is dealing with matters of historic sexual abuse. Nevertheless, we hope to achieve a situation in which people will not feel that any barrier or inhibition prevents them coming forward with those concerns.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I wholeheartedly endorse and support what has been said about this strategy. I know from my pastoral work how the effects of crime can resonate throughout people’s lives, not least when it comes to sexual abuse that happened a long time ago. Nevertheless, can the noble and learned Lord comment on the term “victim” and when its use is appropriate and when it is not? Occasionally in the report the term “victim/survivor” is used, and of course we have the report from Lord Justice Henriques into the Operation Midland case, which contained some warnings about the premature use of the word “victim”; in that case it is clear that those who were accused were the victims, and I understand that the person who was widely described as the victim is himself now facing criminal charges. The same was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his report on the Bishop Bell case. Is there a way of defining the term? At the end of the report there is a glossary of about 29 or 30 terms, but the term “victim” itself is not defined in it. Perhaps the strategy might be strengthened if there was at least some recognition that people who are falsely accused can equally be victims.
Lord Keen of Elie
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his observation. It is of course difficult in this situation, because if we simply proceed with the term “complainer”, people have certain perceptions about that, and that in itself appears to inhibit them from coming forward. They are perceived to be merely complainers rather than, as they are in reality, victims. Terminology is therefore important here, but it is also difficult. However, I entirely endorse the right reverend Prelate’s observation that those who are falsely accused of crime are also victims. Of that there can be no doubt whatever, and we should always remember that.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I also welcome this strategy from the Government. I will ask the Minister about major incidents and their victims: places such as Grenfell, of which I have some knowledge, but also Manchester and even Salisbury. I hope that in the strategy the Government acknowledge the role of local government in supporting the victims but I also hope that they challenge local government and look to support it in its role as supporting victims of these major incidents.
Lord Keen of Elie
I thank my noble friend for that. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised this very same point about the need to ensure that all agencies which may be involved in these matters should be properly engaged and consulted. I certainly acknowledge the role of local government in dealing with disasters such as Grenfell, the Manchester bombing or Salisbury. There have to be clear lines of engagement between central government and local government to ensure that that can be achieved, and I anticipate that that matter will be addressed in the course of the consultation process.
Ivory Bill
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, Clause 2 currently leaves to the Secretary of State the choice of bodies that will perform the task of authorising the issue of exemption certificates. However, it is imperative that the Secretary of State appoints bodies that represent specialists who know their subjects and have expertise in their field. This amendment will require the Secretary of State to appoint only institutions which have expertise in objects that contain ivory. The incorporation of this requirement would also protect the Secretary of State from an accusation that he has appointed an inappropriate body. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend’s amendment seeks to define the type of institution the Secretary of State can prescribe to provide advice under Clause 2, and I hope to reassure my noble friend that this will not be required.
Subsection (5) confers a delegated power for the Secretary of State to prescribe a list of advisory institutions. Any assessment of an item’s artistic, cultural or historical value is to a degree subjective. This is why the Secretary of State will seek the advice of the country’s foremost experts in different forms of ivory items, from the UK’s most prestigious museums. Indeed, eminent institutions such as the Victoria and Albert Museum and the British Museum, which have world-renowned expertise in areas and periods of artistic history relevant to ivory artefacts, have already confirmed that they would like to be involved. These institutions provide advice to government on matters of pre-eminence and national importance, for instance under the export licensing regime for cultural objects. They will also be required to ensure that their best-qualified experts are engaged to assess the items.
If needed, the Secretary of State may, over time, update regulations prescribing advisory institutions if, for example, a source of expertise moves from an institution or a new centre of expertise emerges. Under no circumstances would we prescribe an institution which did not hold the relevant expertise. I hope that with that reassurance about expertise my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I thank my noble friend. What he has said sounds helpful. I will give his response consideration before Report, so for today I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord De Mauley
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 13 and 28. The Bill appears to require an exemption certificate application to be accompanied by an expectation that “dealing” in an item is due to occur. This expectation is created by subsection (1)(f), which requires an applicant to provide information about,
“any dealing in the item that is expected to take place”.
From this wording it is not entirely clear whether it is a strict requirement of the Bill that dealing must happen. An owner of an object may wish to obtain a certificate as a precaution, so that if they decide to offer it for sale in the future they will already have all the necessary paperwork in place. Furthermore, for any number of reasons, the owner of an item may subsequently decide, having obtained a certificate, that he does not wish to proceed with the sale.
I realise that the word “any” in “any dealing” could suggest that information about dealing needs to be provided only when such information exists, but this amendment makes it absolutely clear that to obtain a certificate an item does not need to be offered for sale or sold, least of all to the museum or institution advising on the exemption certificate, with all the conflicts of interest that could lead to. In summary, therefore, it should be possible to gain an exemption certificate for an item that may end up remaining in a private collection.
I turn to Amendment 28. Clause 9(1) refers explicitly to the sale of an ivory item to a museum, but unlike the definitions of “dealing” in Clause 1 it makes no specific reference to “offering for sale”. Clearly, no sale to a museum can occur without an object having been offered to that museum. The problem with the current phrasing is that it makes it appear as though an exemption applies only if a sale is “concluded”. Until an agreement is reached, there can be no certainty that an object will be acquired by a museum: the trustees may be asked for approval and decline to give it. Often the whole process can be very protracted and negotiations can break down at any stage. The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to clarify that if an ivory item is offered to a museum the seller is under no obligation to complete a sale. If the meaning of subsection (1) is that the seller must complete the sale regardless of the sum that the museum is prepared to pay, no museum would offer more than the barest minimum. I beg to move.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 13 and 28 appear in the name of my noble friend Lord De Mauley. Their intention is to clarify that where an item has an exemption certificate or has been registered, perhaps—but not necessarily—with the intention of selling the item, there is no obligation to proceed with a sale. I assure him that there will be no such obligations on applicants. Indeed, we recognise that there may be many reasons for an application. For example, we anticipate that owners of certain items may wish to apply for an exemption certificate before valuation for insurance purposes, not for any sale.
The primary intention of the registration and exemption certificate processes is to ensure that items meet the criteria for the applicable exemption before they can be subject to commercial dealing, but there is no obligation to undertake any commercial transaction following certification or registration. It is also worth bearing in mind that neither certification nor registration is time limited and can exist over a long period. In the light of this clarification, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord De Mauley
I thank my noble friend for that response, which it is helpful to have on the record. I am, therefore, happy to withdraw the amendment.
“(5A) Subject to subsection (5B), the Secretary of State may not issue a replacement certificate in respect of an item if a replacement certificate has previously been issued in respect of the same item.(5B) Subsection (5A) does not apply where—(a) an exemption certificate has been applied for under section 3, and issued, in respect of the item since the last instance of a replacement certificate being issued,(b) the owner of the item has changed since the last instance of a replacement certificate being issued, or(c) it seems to the Secretary of State that there are extraneous circumstances that warrant issuing a further replacement certificate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a limit of one replacement certificate being issued for an item. After one certificate is issued, a further replacement certificate can be issued only if a new certificate is applied for under section 3, or if the owner of the item changes, or if there are extraneous circumstances that warrant issuing a replacement certificate.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving Amendment 14, on the subject of replacement certificates, because we believe that more safeguards are needed, since the Bill would allow multiple certificates to be issued for a particular item, and these could then be used to sell similar items illegally. We feel strongly that no loopholes should be allowed and that nothing in the Bill could result in unscrupulous dealers misusing these certificates. Given that the point of the Bill is to stop illegal ivory trading, and that—as we have discussed —unscrupulous people will exploit loopholes, it is important that these rules are extremely tight.
When this was discussed in the other place, the Minister made the point that because exemption certificates would apply only to unique peices—and therefore a limited number—there was an exceedingly low risk that a certificate, which will include a photograph, could be used fraudulently for another item. So far, so good, but this does not protect against the production of replicas, so we could end up with something that looks very similar to the photograph but is not the original item: you would have a replica item with a duplicate certificate.
Although such activity would of course be an offence under the Fraud Act 2006, and subject to criminal sanctions or a custodial sentence, this may well not deter those involved in the illegal ivory trade, where we know that millions of imitation antique pieces are already floating around and making very high profits.
This is really just a probing amendment to learn from the Minister how this will work in practice and whether he can provide reassurance that there are sufficient safeguards built into the system of issuing replacement certificates to prevent fraudulent duplication of them. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I do not fully understand the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to limit the number of times the duplicate exemption certificate can be applied for. In the internet age, any sensible person would want to check that a paper certificate was genuine and would perhaps ask for confirmation from Defra, quoting the certificate’s unique reference code. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. If someone loses his passport more than once, I would imagine that he could still obtain a replacement from Her Majesty’s Passport Office. I am not sure why replacing an ivory exemption certificate deserves a more limited approach. Surely, whether the piece of paper is the first one issued or a second replacement, each will show the same information, presumably with the same unique reference code and image of the item. It is the fact that the item has been exempted, and that the piece of paper indicates as much, that is important.
I am not clear what misdemeanour would occur if, in error, an object owner found that they had two certificates for the same object. Whether second duplicates can or cannot be issued would not stop a criminal from attempting to produce a falsified certificate.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s amendment recognises an important issue: to ensure that we avoid any loopholes that could be exploited by those wishing to circumvent the ivory ban and continue to trade ivory illegally. I understand the concern that an individual may exploit the provision included in the Bill to issue replacement exemption certificates under the exemption for the rarest and most important example of its type. The concern is that an individual might fraudulently use replacement exemption certificates for non-exempt items, and I am clearly interested in ensuring that that is not possible. But I say to the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord De Mauley that such an action would be an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 and may be subject to criminal sanctions—a custodial sentence or a criminal fine.
The Bill is clear that a replacement certificate will be issued only if the original has been lost, the original was not passed on by the original owner when the item was sold, or for any other reason that the Animal and Plant Health Agency acting on behalf of the Secretary of State considers appropriate. I reassure the noble Baroness that the process that an individual must follow to request a replacement certificate will be carefully developed with APHA to avoid any potential loopholes that could be exploited by unscrupulous individuals.
First, the owner will need to declare why a replacement is required. APHA should also be able to check the application against a database of exempt items. Secondly, a unique identification number will be included on the certificate which associates it with the exempt item. Certificates will include photographs of the item as originally submitted when applying for the exemption and a narrative description of the item. Given the nature of items exempted under this category, it is highly unlikely that there would be another item of such close similarity that it could reasonably be taken to be covered by a certificate issued for another item. Officials will be working with APHA because this is an area that we are clear on. We do not want to find any loopholes in what we do. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue, but we are very much alive to the need to ensure that the replacement certificate regime is robust and, at the same time, that replacements can be issued.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for those comments. I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance. The situation that we envisaged is that there would be more than one certificate and more than one item that looked similar in the market. There would then be the problem of identifying which was the original and which was the fake. As we develop our exemption certificate regime, I can imagine that they will have some kudos abroad. They will not just be used for enforcement under our regime but could give some additional value to properties that are traded in other countries as proof of the item being of the highest quality and so forth. I would like to look a little more at the Minister’s comments, but I will not pursue this any further today so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
( ) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply if an appeal has already been made against the decision to refuse an application for an exemption certificate or to revoke an exemption certificate, and the original decision was upheld.Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would permit a person to appeal against a decision to refuse an application for an exemption certificate or to revoke an exemption certificate only once.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
As drafted, the Bill allows an infinite number of appeals. This concern was raised specifically by the David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation, which argued the case for deleting the unprecedented and unnecessary appeals provision. That is what we have tried to do with this amendment.
The amendment would streamline the appeals provisions for sales exemptions for items of outstanding artistic or cultural value. It would permit applicants a formal right of appeal against the original decision to reject an application only once. If the appeal was unsuccessful, the applicant would be able to make a fresh application, and pay the appropriate fee, if they wished an item to be considered again.
The cost of an application fee is intended to be cost neutral. However, under the current provision, if an individual refused to accept the decision that an item does not qualify for an exemption, they could effectively frustrate the appeals process with successive appeals, each of which would require detailed consideration and a response. If a number of people submitted repeated appeals, that would inevitably have implications for resources and could have a detrimental impact on other activities, including enforcement of the regime. We believe that limiting the right to appeal against a decision to only once is sufficient to protect individuals’ property rights. There are many examples across government where decisions on applications can be appealed only once, including visa applications and school places. I am sure that there are many more. Furthermore, this would avoid establishing a new precedent under UK law that would introduce a convoluted formal appeal process for what is in effect a specialised form of wildlife trade licensing.
There is no appeal system for any other wildlife trade licence issued in the UK, including those under CITES, let alone anything wider than that. We therefore hope that the Committee will feel able to support our amendment.
I have a quick comment on Amendment 16 in this group. On the face of it, I do not have a problem with this amendment. I would have thought that it made sense for appeals to be heard by someone with expertise, and it may be that the Minister is able to reassure noble Lords on this issue so that they do not feel it necessary to pursue the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I shall speak to both amendments in this group but deal with Amendment 16 first. Rightly, the Bill makes provision for circumstances where the owner of an item disagrees with the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse to grant an exemption certificate. Under the existing wording, the Secretary of State could simply appoint a lawyer with no knowledge of, or expertise in, ivory artefacts in order to determine the appeal. The intention of the amendment is to make sure that the appeal is heard by someone who has expertise and experience in assessing ivory works of art. An understanding of cultural property and of the methods used by curators or art market professionals to decide on the authenticity and age of such objects would be vital skills for the appointee. He or she would need to understand the reasons for the rejection and ask all the right questions. It would be unjust for all concerned if the person appointed to this role is someone unfamiliar with the relevant issues.
I turn to Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. To my mind, refusing further appeals beyond the first appears to fly in the face of natural justice. Take an object such as one which an applicant understood had been owned by a famous person such as Admiral Nelson. At the time the first appeal was heard, it may be that the extent and quality of the evidence in the possession of the applicant to back up the purported provenance was deemed insufficient. Further irrefutable evidence may later come to light. Surely the applicant should be given the opportunity to present this information a second time.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment, which would prevent a person applying for a Clause 5 appeal more than once. As drafted, the Bill will allow applicants to appeal a decision either to revoke or refuse the issuing of an exemption certificate for a pre-1918 ivory item that is a rare and important example of its type, so that it can be protected by an exemption. Clause 5 will enable the details of the grounds to be set out in secondary legislation. Noble Lords will be aware that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has questioned this approach and recommended that more details should be set out in the Bill. We are grateful to the Committee for its consideration of the Bill. We are carefully considering its recommendations and will respond in due course and, if necessary, seek to amend the Bill on Report.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response. He has gone some way to reassuring me that appeals will have to be legally watertight and based on fact—that is very helpful. I look forward to the Minister coming back with a further report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cormack
Member’s explanatory statement
Not all miniatures would be covered by this limit. This amendment would allow more flexibility in judging miniatures.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, this amendment and Amendment 18, which are grouped together with a number of other amendments, are succinctly explained thanks to the new custom in your Lordships’ House of being able to add a sentence of explanation. As the one for Amendment 17 says:
“Not all miniatures would be covered by this limit. This amendment would allow more flexibility in judging miniatures”.
There is clearly going to be a considerable amount of bureaucracy following the enactment of the Bill. Anything that can be done to reduce that must be good for everyone, and good for the public purse. If we are going to have experts—and it will only be experts—looking at miniatures, and they have to worry because a miniature is 325 square centimetres rather than 320, that really is preposterous. Therefore, I suggest that this is a constructive, simple and sensible amendment.
Similarly with Amendment 18, we have this arbitrary figure of 10% in the Bill. Brief reference has already been made in your Lordships’ House today to a recent case that came about as a result of a presidential edict in another country. I refer to a wonderful piece of 18th century Chippendale furniture from which, because it fell foul of the United States’ regulations, the owner felt obliged, in submitting it for auction to one of the major London auction houses—I think it was Christie’s—to remove the ivory escutcheons and substitute celluloid. It was the desecration of one of the finest pieces of English furniture of the 18th century. What an act of vandalism—an act committed because of the perception of regulations in another country. The consequence was that the piece failed to sell, although when it was sold some years before it was recorded as the most expensive piece of English 18th century furniture ever sold.
Reference has been made in our debates to some of the wonderful inlaid boxes from India. Many of them came from Goa, the Portuguese enclave. They are inlaid with ivory, and some are incredibly intricate and beautiful. But how do you really determine whether the volume of ivory is 10% or not? My noble friend Lord De Mauley has tabled a more sensible amendment than mine, given that he wants to make the figure 50%. I feel slightly ashamed of my own modesty in putting down only 20%, and applaud his adventurism in putting down 50%. However, we are dealing with a Government who seem hardly sympathetic to aesthetic considerations, who seem to be in the process of branding themselves as desecrators and champions of vandalism.
The figure of 20% is indeed very modest. Are we really going to endanger some fine artefacts from another age, albeit not necessarily of museum quality, because they have ivory from an elephant long, long dead? Here is a case, if ever there was one, of the best being the enemy of the good. Just imagine if we said that in our churches only monuments by Rysbrack and Nollekens would be allowed to remain from the 18th century and the others would have to go. That would be absurd. Why, therefore, do we have to say that something which may not be superlative but is still incredibly good, still part of our history, should be endangered by this arbitrary limit?
I hope that some sympathetic consideration will be given to these two points as well as to the others covered in the amendments which have been grouped with my two amendments. I like to think that we are a civilised country, and I feel that this is a civilised House. I do not want us to put on to the statute book something that, in fact, runs counter to civilisation. I beg to move.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments 18, 19, 21, 22 and 23 in this group. I will not deal at length with Amendment 17 moved by my noble friend except to say that I have considerable sympathy with it.
Starting with Amendments 18 and 19, the 10% threshold chosen for the Clause 7 exemption is another major aspect of the Bill that has caused enormous concern among those who handle antiques. In Committee in the other place, the Minister, David Rutley, rightly explained that objects,
“such as inlaid furniture or a dish or a teapot with a small ivory handle are not valued on the basis of their ivory content. Further, in such pieces, the ivory is incidental and integral to the item. It cannot be easily removed, so it is not vulnerable to recarving”.—[Official Report, Commons, Ivory Bill Committee, 14/6/18; col. 92.]
The Minister also made it clear at column 98 that the Government have no intention of unduly affecting artistic and cultural heritage.
There are plenty of objects with, say, 20% or 30% ivory content, and thus where ivory is still not the predominant material, such as inlaid or veneered Indian boxes and antique silver coffee pots, to which precisely the same characteristics apply; they are not valued on the basis of their ivory content. The ivory is incidental and integral to the item and thus not vulnerable to recarving. The Minister in the other place also said:
“It was refreshing and encouraging to hear in evidence that the 20% threshold will work for the vast majority of musical instruments, and that the enforcement agencies feel comfortable that that is a way to take the process forward”.—[Official Report, Commons, Ivory Bill Committee, 14/6/18; col. 109.]
It is therefore a mystery why the Government have opted for a 10% threshold for one group of items and 20% for another. It is inconsistent and it is illogical.
What are the particular features of an object such as an inlaid Georgian tea caddy with 12% ivory inlay that renders it any more likely to be reused or valued for its ivory content than a musical instrument such as a baroque lute containing the same proportion of decorative ivory inlay? In the Second Reading debate in the other place and in the Public Bill Committee sittings, no examples were given by the Minister there of known cases where antique objects inlaid with ivory had been valued based on their ivory content or had been bought for the purpose of having their ivory removed. Neither do I believe were Art Deco bronze and ivory sculptures cited, nor were antique silver tea and coffee services demonstrated to have been sold for these purposes. In fact no evidence has been brought forward by anyone in any of the debates to suggest that where ivory represents less than half of the volume of a historical object, it contributes to poaching.
To discover whether items made from a mixture of ivory and other materials are being bought by people from the Far East, it would be helpful to have some data. Unfortunately, as I have already mentioned, the readily accessible UK export data for ivory held by the CITES secretariat distinguishes only piano keys from other carved items, so we do not know how many inlaid wooden boxes or bronze and ivory sculptures are being exported to China, but I would hazard a guess that the number is very low. It would be surprising if the Animal and Plant Health Agency had evidence of antique items where ivory is not the principal material being purchased in vast numbers and at prices well above the value of their ivory content, with a view to removing the ivory in China and selling it at the low price commanded by second-hand ivory.
The witness from the International Fund for Animal Welfare to the Bill Committee in the other place spoke on 12 June 2018 at column 14 and quoted $450 per kg as the price of raw ivory. A Georgian sterling silver tea pot worth £2,000 might contain an ivory handle weighing 80 grams. Using the IFAW figure, that 80 grams would currently be worth £36. As an old and pre-shaped piece, it would be worth even less, perhaps only £10. Why would someone pay £2,000 for the purpose of acquiring ivory worth just £10? If they removed the ivory they would also damage the integrity, and thus reduce the value, of the item for which they had paid £2,000.
How should we respond to the grandmother who owns a genuine early Victorian silver coffee pot with an original ivory handle or insulator, who is prevented from selling it and using the £1,800 proceeds to contribute to her grandchild’s university education? No one has demonstrated how a genuine antique of this nature has any connection to the poaching of elephants, so why should its owner be penalised in this way? The Minister in the other place referred in Committee at column 92 to the federal system in the US having a 50% by volume limit combined with a 200 gram weight threshold. It is understood that this restriction applies only in respect of objects that are not antiques.
The Duke of Wellington (Con)
My Lords, when I spoke earlier on Amendment 5, I meant to declare an interest in that my family’s collection of works of art contains many objects containing ivory. That is true of all historic collections. In a sense, it is a non-interest because neither my family nor I have any intention to sell these objects, so I have no direct financial interest in the outcome of the Bill.
However, I would like to comment in some detail on Amendment 17, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. The Government have accepted that portrait miniatures are a definable category and should be treated separately, as they are in the Bill, but I cannot understand why they have been so precise on the definition of the size. This morning, I went to look at a miniature in our collection that is considerably more than 320 square centimetres in size. In any event, as we know, all portrait miniatures are really valued by the quality of the painting or identity of the sitter, rather than the very limited amount of ivory on which it is painted.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in speaking to the amendment I will speak to Amendments 20, 29 and 32, which are in my name. My suggestion is that the requirement to register Section 7 exemptions—that is, objects with the de minimis amount of ivory in them, which are not made of ivory per se but are ornamented with it—should be removed. I should declare that I am also the owner of a few ivory objects but, as a mere Baron, the extent and quantity of my ivory objects is probably less than that of most Dukes.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me, but I want to go back to the Bill and look at the Explanatory Notes in particular, because sometimes we lose sight of what we are trying to do and why. Paragraph 5 states:
“The aim of the Ivory Bill is to help conserve elephant populations, specifically by reducing poaching, through significantly limiting the legal market for ivory in the UK. This is intended to reduce demand for ivory both within the UK, and overseas through the application of the sales ban to re-exports of ivory from the UK. This aim is in line with the 2017 Conservative Manifesto commitment to ‘protect[ing] rare species’”.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, can subscribe to that, as well as the noble Baronesses on the Liberal Front Bench and equally, I would hope, the Minister. I am confident that he can. The end of the next paragraph states:
“Finally, the ivory ban will demonstrate the UK does not consider commercial activities in any ivory that could fuel poaching to be acceptable and it sends a message that similar actions should be taken globally”.
I do not think that anybody would take exception to that either. It seems that there is a direct correlation between the sale of ivory and poaching.
Finally, the end of paragraph 16, which talks about exemptions, states:
“Strictly-defined exemptions will therefore apply where a ban on the commercial use of items is unwarranted. This is considered to be the case when it is understood that both the continuation of sales of certain categories of items would not contribute either directly or indirectly to ivory poaching, and the intrinsic value of that item is not due to its ivory content”.
Here we have an acceptance from the Government that, in certain circumstances, some items that contain ivory do not contribute in any way to the poaching of elephants. I am as enthusiastic as anyone about preserving elephants. Equally, I am interested in old things. It seems clear that this policy begins with the proposition that we should protect elephants, then says as an instrument of policy that the way in which we wish to do that is by introducing a ban on ivory that encourages the poaching of elephants. At the same time, it also spells out expressly that certain categories of items containing ivory do not do that. I am saying that the de minimis exception does not affect the market for ivory which threatens elephants.
That being the case, what is the purpose of the registration? On the Government’s own admission, this category of items does not contribute directly or indirectly to ivory poaching. Against that background, we have an embryonic system whose scope is very unclear. We have heard talk about 2 million to 3 million items, possibly more, that might fall within this category. Of course, not all of them will be sold—certainly not all at once—but we are not talking about a few rich and rare items, such as Byzantine ivories. We are talking about a very substantial quantity of, for want of a better way of putting it, household goods across the country. Given that the value of many of these items is small, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, the cost of registration will inevitably be big, relatively speaking.
I know from the Minister that the system and how it would work has not yet been finalised, but it will be expensive, time-consuming, bureaucratic and potentially iconoclastic. We have heard how items will be damaged or have the ivory removed if they are valuable. I cry no crocodile tears for the very rich man, whoever he was, who tried to sell the Chippendale cabinet in New York and found himself frustrated because it did not make as much as he wanted. If you buy works of art as an investment, they may go up or down in value, like all investments. The vandalism of that particular piece of furniture is a tragedy because, once you remove the original aspects, you degrade the inherent quality and characteristics. It is no good saying that a piece of furniture adapted in this way is the same as it was before. That is like saying that an original work of art is just the same as a photograph of it. It is not. This proposition intrudes into people’s ordinary lives. The other problem, as has been touched on, is that a lot of items in this category—such as chests of drawers with escutcheons or boxes with ivory inlay—are effectively, if not actually, the same. So, the argument for registration so that you can trace items will be more or less impossible in practice, even if it were worth doing.
Finally, you could say that at least we will know whether ivory is capable of being sold lawfully, but that is a pretty thin argument. If you can measure it once, you can measure it twice. Given the context and the fact that these items, by the Government’s own admission, do not contribute to the poaching of elephants, I also wonder whether it may be in breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions”.
I would have thought that being told that you had to do this to sell some of your household possessions is pretty close to a breach, if not already so. Echoing comments made on both of the main Front Benches, I am worried that a bit of collateral damage here is thought to be all right somehow. As I have said, I am as enthusiastic as anybody about preserving the elephants. I think, however, that it also matters that these items should not be indiscriminately and pointlessly put at risk and possibly destroyed or damaged. It is like a warlord saying, “We have got to take out that particular strongpoint in order to win the battle. If we happen to zap a lot of innocent civilians at the same time, it does not really matter. The end justifies the means”. I do not think that is right, and I think we need to be a bit more subtle in our thinking and sophisticated in our approach to this. This kind of “New lamps for old” attitude does not seem to fit the case of the world we are in. I would like to think that we should remove the registration requirement, not least because it seems to be a classic case of “de minimis non curat lex”.
Lord Crathorne (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly comment on Amendment 17, from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and Amendment 18. We have heard from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, about items in his collection which exceed 320 square centimetres. That seems enormously restrictive. It would surely be better to remove that restriction so that anyone judging a miniature would have the ability to decide whether it was something worth saving and looking after. It is very restrictive to set the threshold at 320 square centimetres.
On Amendment 18, I think it is going to be so difficult to accurately assess the 10% threshold. I am at a slight loss to know why, if musical instruments may have up to 20% ivory content, it cannot be 20% across the board. As we have heard, in such countries as France, it is already 20%. I urge the Minister to perhaps give that a little more thought.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I wonder if I might add another sentence or two to what we have just heard and to what I spoke about at Second Reading. I reiterate that there are several hundred thousand bows for string instruments in the United Kingdom alone. They have ivory or mammoth faces weighing less than one or two grams. Some of these will be 200 years old—
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
We will be discussing musical instruments in the next group.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I have listened with interest to the debate. On the subject of inlays and escutcheons, what consideration has the Minister given to having a de minimis test of thickness? If the inlay or the escutcheon is less than a certain thickness, surely it has no use for recarving at a later stage. Perhaps the Minister could write to me on that point in due course.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I have listened to the debate this afternoon with great interest. I have received briefings from the World Wildlife Fund and from the Environmental Investigating Agency, the Born Free Foundation, the David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Stop Ivory, Tusk Trust, the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Zoological Society of London. None of them appears to agree with the previous speakers in this debate.
On Amendment 17, the size of the miniature should be defined in the Bill. Otherwise, arguments will arise as to exactly how big a miniature can be. It is important to have this defined in the Bill and not left to some arbitrary decision.
With reference to Amendments 18 and 19, many of the artefacts listed by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, are simply not in the same class as musical instruments, to which we will return in a later group. Musical instruments are used on a regular basis and are the tools of a musician’s trade and are not an item of antique beauty. They may be that as well, but their main purpose is as a tool of a musician’s trade.
I am disappointed that a university student should accept their fees being paid for by their grandparents selling an antique item which could have been decorated by the body of a dead elephant. I doubt whether many of their fellow students would find this acceptable. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, believes that we live in a civilised society. It is still a civilised society that allows 50 elephants a day to be killed for their ivory. Whatever the percentage of ivory is set at, it will need to be examined and verified. I could not support, and nobody on these Benches could support, a 20% limit and certainly not a 50% limit.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I will speak on the amendments in this group. They are amendments to Clauses 6 and 10 regarding other exemptions to the ban on ivory sales and can be categorised as reducing the criteria and extending the number of ivory items that would escape the ban. We do not agree with these amendments.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, these amendments relate to exemptions. As I said previously, this part of the Bill has involved close consultation and dialogue with all interested parties.
A considerable number of amendments are in this group. That in the name of my noble friend Lord Cormack would remove the size qualification, set at 320 square centimetres, from the portrait miniatures exemption. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, this exemption came out of the consultation and formed a further exemption that perhaps had not been identified before.
During the House of Commons evidence session, an expert on portrait miniatures gave evidence on how the exemption for portrait miniatures could be refined by the addition of a size limit. It is important to ensure in legislation that we have as much precision and certainty as possible. The evidence provided to the committee suggested that a size limit of six inches by eight inches for portrait miniatures would be very sensible, as it would cover the vast majority—I say to my noble friend Lord Crathorne that the expert thought this to be 90 to 95%—of pre-1918 portrait miniatures.
The Government were persuaded by this new evidence to include a size limit to this exemption and for it to apply to the visible ivory surface. We have again taken the suggestion of the expert to whom the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred of six by eight inches, converted this to metric—when I took advice, I was told that this is now the way in which official bodies conduct themselves, but I do not want to get into imperial and metric—and expressed it as a total surface area in recognition of the high number of portrait miniatures which are circular or oval in shape. Further—I do not know whether this will be helpful to my noble friend the Duke of Wellington—the Bill makes it clear that the frame will not be included in the calculation of the surface area of a portrait miniature. In consultation with stakeholders, we will issue detailed guidance on the exemption criteria, which will include simple steps on how to measure surface area. This amendment was widely supported in the other place.
On the amendments about “de minimis”, I have previously mentioned the extensive work that we have carried out with stakeholders to shape this Bill and we have come to a proportionate response—mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said about my own party’s 2010 and 2015 manifesto commitments to press for a total ban, referred to in the Explanatory Notes. As such, the de minimis exemption is part of a wider package of narrow and carefully defined exemptions which accounts for a range of views. To broaden the scope of the de minimis exemption would therefore not only weaken the ban but undermine this carefully balanced package. It is important to note that, in determining this package, exemptions for portrait miniatures and the rarest and most important items of their type were included. The exemptions allow for items that would have otherwise been excluded if only the de minimis exemption applied. We can tout percentages, but some states in the United States, including California, have put in place a 5% threshold for their de minimis exemption, setting an even higher bar.
The Government agree with the points made by noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. We believe that a 10% de minimis threshold demonstrates a robust but proportionate approach to this exemption. For example, the exemption will allow the dealing in items such as inlaid furniture to continue, but it will prevent dealing in items containing larger amounts of ivory.
My noble friends have also suggested that we specify volume in cubic centimetres, below which any item may be considered exempt. This could, I am afraid, act as a loophole for those wishing to export solid pieces of ivory to major-demand markets in the Far East. These items are at risk of being re-carved to suit local tastes, thereby further fuelling the demand for ivory and its social acceptability—we have to go back to the public interest in all this; the public interest is to do all we can do across the world to prevent the extinction of the elephant in the wild.
I recognise noble Lords’ interest in how the de minimis exemption will be applied and can assure them that information on how the volume should be assessed will be outlined clearly in guidance. For example, when registering an item, the owner will make their own assessment of the percentage volume of ivory, meaning that no damage is likely to take place. It will also be made clear that any voids which are integral to the item— for example, in a chest of drawers—will be included in the overall volume of the item.
Enforcement bodies have made clear from their experience with existing legislation that a percentage volume is the most practical measurement in assessment and enforcement, as it allows assessments to be carried out by eye. To assess the total weight of ivory in an item would be far more difficult and could even mean that ivory needed to be removed to be weighed, thereby possibly damaging the item. I hope that my noble friends will understand that we do not seek to damage such items.
My noble friends, in particular my noble friend Lord De Mauley, also raised a number of points about the definition of “integral”. I want to explain how we have arrived at this definition and why we are unable to accept his amendment. Evidence provided to us during the public consultation demonstrated a significant risk associated with any de minimis exemption if the right protections are not put in place. Criminals could, for instance, attach a large, solid piece of ivory to another product for it to meet the volume threshold of the de minimis exemption. For example, solid pieces of ivory may be added as a handle to a wooden walking stick, or larger pieces may be attached and presented on a large plinth in order for the ivory to be only 10% of the total volume. Such solid pieces of ivory could subsequently be removed, re-carved and sold in major-demand markets of the Far East, thereby further fuelling demand for ivory.
Lord De Mauley
I am not sure that I fully understand my noble friend. Would not these then be modern creations?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Not necessarily, my Lords.
For this reason, the criteria of the de minimis exemption include a point about the ivory needing to be integral to the item. To avoid a potential loophole being created, it is necessary that the definition of “integral” is sufficiently strict. I recognise my noble friend Lord De Mauley’s points in regard to certain items that this may affect, but we believe that the risk of the exemption being exploited by criminals to sell what should be illegal ivory items is too great.
I am not sure whether I should now refer to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, as my noble friend or as the noble Lord, but, whatever he is, he is my noble friend. Taken together, his amendments would remove the requirement to register pre-1947 items with less than 10% ivory by volume. We want a robust yet proportionate compliance process. I want to explain how we have ensured this in the Bill and why the Government do not feel it right to accept the amendment. I have already made clear the intention of this ivory ban and why we have decided to include narrow and targeted exemptions. These will facilitate a limited ongoing trade and allow owners of exempt ivory objects, and those involved in their sale, to continue ongoing commercial activities in ivory. It is, however, crucial that such activities are limited to objects that are unlikely to contribute to the poaching of elephants and that these exemptions are not exploited by those wishing to deal in illegal elephant ivory products.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I have sat in the other place and this House now for some 48 years. I do not think I have ever been more depressed by a Bill put forward by a Government to whom I give support. I do not think that I have ever heard a more obdurate reply from the Front Bench. I beg my noble friend—I have always regarded him as a friend in every sense—to have a little bit of the pragmatism and flexibility which have been defining characteristics of the Conservative Party and, I believe, of all good democrats through the ages.
I have to confine my remarks to Amendment 17—the one that deals with miniatures. My noble friend the Duke of Wellington indicated to me, so that I knew in time to wind up, that the miniature that he examined this morning, and which he has offered to show to my noble friend, is significantly larger than the limit prescribed. Frankly, it is no good to say that the exemption covers 90% of miniatures. When people buy a miniature, they are buying a work of art because they want to own that particular image because of the subject or the artist, and sometimes both. They are not buying it because it is painted on velum, ivory or anything else. They are buying it for the picture. It just so happens that for a couple of centuries many of the best miniaturists painted on ivory and some of the finest miniatures in our national and local collections and in private collections in houses open to the public are painted on ivory. Some of them—among them some of the very best—will be bigger than the limit prescribed in the Bill.
This way madness lies and I beg my noble friend—whose invitation to withdraw the amendment I shall have to accept—to talk to my noble friend the Duke of Wellington and others between now and Report and to see that the case we are advancing in your Lordships’ Chamber today is not nonsensical but has at its heart a love for our national heritage and for these objects and miniatures that form a very important part of it. This is not a question of doing damage to any elephant. All the elephants on whose ivory the miniatures are painted are long dead. With a heavy heart, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cormack
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is designed to simplify the bureaucratic arrangements which will follow the enactment of this Bill.
Lord Cormack
I am sorry it is me again but I feel strongly about these things. In my two amendments and the one tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, we are looking at music and musical instruments. I was encouraged to take an interest in this because of the admirable, although brief, speech that my noble friend—that is what I am going to call him—Lord Berkeley made at Second Reading. He indicated that, here again, the ivory happens to be the material but it is incidental. People do not buy a particular violin, a particular piano or set of Northumbrian pipes—I shall give the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, a trail, because I do so agree with her—because of the ivory content. Nevertheless, the ivory content is integral and is important.
I had representations only last week about bows. I was told things that I did not necessarily know. The small piece of ivory in a bow for a stringed instrument—a violin, cello or whatever—can be less than 1% and is gradually being replaced, through wear, with plastic in the cheaper ones, or permafrost mammoth. There was a quite preposterous suggestion at Second Reading that we should outlaw the use of ivory from mammoth, which have been extinct for millennia—God help me. My correspondent goes on to say that requiring all extant bows to be registered with Defra, and a de minimis rule, will swamp both Defra and the other offices concerned. She points out that there are 30,000 members of the Musicians’ Union in this country, the vast majority of whom make their profession from the use of bows. New legislation would make it difficult for them to tour with their bows or to sell them.
If the 30,000 professional musicians are not a sufficient concern, consider the amateurs. Consider how often, in this House, Members in all parts get up and lament what is happening to music in schools. We are dealing here with something where the ivory content is not only incidental, it is insignificant. We cannot have a situation where not only the artistic heritage of our country is put at risk but the musical heritage as well. I have suggested in Amendment 24 that we should put the content up from 20% to 30% and I hope we will be able to debate that in greater detail on Report. I stress that Amendment 26A is the most modest proposal of all—and I do not mean that in the sense of Jonathan Swift. Again, I beg and urge my noble friend to show some sympathy, as a man who, I believe, loves music, and recognise that we are not doing anything here that could conceivably endanger any living elephant. I beg to move.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 26 is in my name and is part of this group. I had very much hoped not to speak in Committee, or bring forward an amendment, as I had hoped that the problems that the Bill poses for the sale of second-hand Northumbrian pipes bought entirely legally in the first place would have been addressed at earlier stages, even in the other place. However, I do wish to speak to my amendment today, and it may be helpful if I put on record once again the fact that I am president of the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society. This is a role that involves no financial payment whatever, and although I do own two sets of pipes, neither of the sets contains any ivory. At Second Reading I explained some of my concern about the Bill’s provisions while strongly giving the Bill my overall support. In fact, I have been in favour of an ivory ban for many years and it is somewhat upsetting to be suspected of not supporting a ban simply for raising a rather narrow issue and a valid concern.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cormack is an extremely experienced parliamentarian, but his arguments would be a little more convincing if he avoided describing my noble friend the Minister’s response as obdurate.
One of the complaints that we hear about the House of Lords is that we are far too London-centric. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the suggestions of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, about the Northumbrian pipes. Perhaps there is something that the Minister could do—some special arrangement. I hope that my noble friend will think about that.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and I thank her for bringing this amendment forward. Throughout most of my adult life I have had much pleasure from hearing the Northumbrian pipes. They are a sweet sounding, relatively quiet instrument—often played indoors—and were the musical instrument of many shepherds and farmworkers in the area that I used to represent. Subsequent generations of pipers have often come from other walks of life—teachers who have been in a variety of professions—but the core of people on whom the musical repertoire of the pipes has depended, and whose tunes are recorded, came from the farming life of Northumberland.
I want the Minister to understand how important this is to us and how strongly we are pleading for him to do something about what is now seen as a threat, particularly to the new pipers—young people and, sometimes, those in retirement—who have to acquire an instrument. We are talking about an instrument of which there are not large numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, mentioned how many thousands of violin and cello bows there are in this country. The sets of Northumbrian pipes are numbered in hundreds—not thousands—and it is quite hard to acquire a set now that there are so few remaining craftsmen who make these instruments. Most of the people who are involved in this activity are not wealthy and if the supply is artificially restricted by the exclusion of so many instruments which were made before 1975 and have ivory content, it would be a very serious threat.
I confess that I have difficulty understanding how the 20% exemption could be applied in the area of Northumbrian pipes, although the Minister gave me a moment of hope when he referred to integral voids, such as the area of an interior of a drawer in a chest of drawers. My mind immediately went to the bag in which the air is pumped in from the bellows, which the piper operates with his or her arm. The bellows could at least be inflated when the judgment is made as to what the integral void is and whether it passes the 20% exemption. Describing that illustrates how worrying it would be if we have to depend on such a concept in order to get a reasonable exemption, which I am sure most people, looking at it rationally, would realise was necessary and was not a coach and horses.
What worries me is that there has been a lot of engagement and discussion with various trades and activities about this Bill. Not all of it has led to the outcomes that some would have desired, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has pointed out. I am not convinced that there has been enough engagement yet with Northumbrian pipers and those who are concerned for their welfare. I want the Minister to give us some assurance that he will try to ensure that that engagement takes place and that, by the time we reach Report, there is some way of dealing with this problem. I know that there is pressure not to amend this Bill so that it sails back to the House of Commons, but we are a revising Chamber and it is our job to discover if there are areas where the Bill does not meet the practical requirements of our society. If it is necessary to make a small amendment to the Bill better to meet the needs of Northumbrian pipers, the Minister must be ready to make that amendment, unless he finds a non-statutory way of achieving it. I have not yet seen that, so I think we will need an amendment at a later stage and I hope the Minister will apply himself to the task of finding a solution.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton
My Lords, I apologise for jumping the gun earlier—perhaps I should say for coming in on an upbeat rather than a downbow. I support Amendment 26A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, which is very precise. I reiterate that there are several hundred thousand bows in the United Kingdom alone that have either ivory or mammoth faces weighing less than 1 or 2 grams, which is really minuscule. Some of these will be 200 years old and as musicians buy and sell bows regularly, this volume of permits will have to be redone every few years. The resources required for that would surely be much better directed towards the problem itself, towards protecting elephants and prosecuting the criminals who try to make money out of ivory. I say to the Minister that I completely understand and endorse the desire to make the Bill strong and as watertight as possible but surely there has to come a point, when we are talking about such a tiny thing that does not threaten living elephants in the slightest, where we have to apply common sense.
Lastly, I know there was a meeting of some of the ivory team at Defra, and they indicated to a bow maker that they would not be entirely against this. I can give the Minister more information on that if he would like it.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 26. Given the information that the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, has provided about the dwindling number of Northumberland pipe makers, it would be a great shame if this delightful pipe were to fall into disuse. I thank my noble friend Lord Beith for his description of the sweet sound that the pipes make and I agree completely with his description, having been dragged along—no, having gone along with my husband—to many concerts where the Northumberland pipes were playing. I urge the Minister to talk to his colleagues to see whether some compromise could be reached to secure the future of the Northumberland pipes.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, noble Lords would expect me to deal with Amendments 25 and 27 in this group. However, they are almost identical to Amendments 21 and 23 respectively, which were in the last group that we debated. Normally in my experience it is Back-Benchers who try to degroup and the Government who try to group up, so this situation must be somewhat unusual. Noble Lords will be pleased that despite the Minister’s response, which did not really address the issues, I do not propose to make the same points again. Instead I will simply say that they apply here as well.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the exemption definition of musical instruments with less than 20% of ivory content. The backstop date at which Asian elephants were first listed in Appendix I of CITES was 1975, before the poaching crisis of the 1980s. Evidence provided through the consultation, including from the Musicians’ Union, showed that that the vast majority of commonly played and traded instruments, including violins, pianos and bagpipes, contain 20% ivory or less by volume. Unfortunately, I understand that Northumbrian pipes would not qualify under this category due to their size. I appreciate the high esteem that these pipes enjoy and the passion with which my noble friend Lady Quin has spoken, but I gently suggest to my noble friend that there might be other ways in which that tradition can be kept alive for future generations. Instruments containing ivory can still be gifted, donated and bequeathed—perhaps, for example, to a dedicated local organisation or even the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society itself—to enable future pipers to enjoy their music. The region could also grant or fundraise for newly manufactured instruments to use ethical alternatives for ivory. I would like the Minister to confirm that that solution would be possible for the Northumbrian pipers. I also reiterate my previous comment that the registration of any exempted items, including musical instruments, is necessary to ensure compliance.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the musical instrument exemption. I say again that the formulation of the exemption has been extensively considered with the music sector. I think I am permitted as Minister to say that when I hear some of my noble friends, I wonder whether they have quite understood that much consideration has gone into the Bill and that the exemption package has involved a considerable amount of intricate detail.
I have never thought of myself as obdurate and I am not going to be so, but we have to go back to the rationale of the Bill, which is to have narrowly defined exemptions to what is a ban on dealing in ivory. If I may say so, my party’s manifesto in 2010 and 2011 contained a total ban on ivory. That is what we fought that election on. We have come forward with a package that we believe is appropriate and should be seen to be so. In all this, I am interested that so many of the people with whom we are working have recognised that the Government have sought to command this great rationale that we want from the Bill but are also seeking to find ways of common sense prevailing. I hope my noble friends will allow me to put on record that I actually do not identify with many of the comments that they have made about the Government’s intention and seeking to make life difficult; in fact we have sought to find a common-sense resolution.
The amendments include a maximum volume in cubic centimetres below which any item may be considered exempt, and propose we increase the volume of ivory allowed in an instrument to 30%. I make it absolutely clear again that the Government’s intention is not to impact unduly on the livelihoods of professional musicians or indeed amateur musicians. This exemption will allow musical instruments made before 1975 and containing less than 20% of ivory to be exempt from the prohibition on the trade of ivory in the UK. Furthermore, items used as an accessory to play a musical instrument—for instance, a violin bow—also fall within the definition of this clause.
In Committee in the Commons, Paul McManus from the Music Industries Association warmly welcomed the exemption under Clause 8 as it stands. Echoing the responses that we received through our public consultation, he stated that the majority of commonly played and traded musical instruments and accessories, such as the bows of stringed instruments, which my noble friend refers to in his amendment, contain less than 20% of ivory. We recognise that some items such as violin bows may be sold, and therefore need to be registered, in higher volumes. In designing the registration system, we are talking to a range of people likely to be frequent users of the system—for example, representatives from the Association of Art and Antique Dealers and the Music Industries Association—so that we can consider their needs. On the suggestion that we include a maximum volume in cubic centimetres below which any item may be considered exempt, I reiterate what I have previously said: I am afraid that an exemption of this type would act as a loophole for those wishing to export solid pieces of ivory to major-demand markets in the Far East.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. I am always conscious that when my noble friend Lord Attlee expresses support I am in for serious trouble. I respect what the noble Baroness and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Beith, have said about this matter. I would be interested to know about the numbers of instruments involved. If I am allowed to go off piste, I am going to ask my officials to ensure that there is a full and proper discussion with the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society about these matters. I hope your Lordships will understand that in saying that, I can give no promises because it would not be right for me to do so and indeed I am not in a position to. However, I want to ensure that the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society feels that after today it has had a proper session individually with officials so that we can understand the aspects of what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have said.
Lord Beith
I am grateful to the Minister for making that suggestion. I put it to him that one of the things that he and his officials might explore when they meet the society is how many instruments, and what proportion of the total stock of instruments in existence, would be affected if the law remained as is currently proposed, and whether that could be affected by any amendment in a helpful way.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The noble Lord and I are on the same page. That is exactly the sort of requirement that I think we should have so that we can understand the points that noble Lords have made.
Some Northumbrian pipes may contain over 20% ivory and therefore may not meet the musical instruments exemption. I obviously cannot commit to this, but having heard what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have said, is it possible that they could be considered under the rarest and most important items exemption, for instance, because of what the pipes mean in the community? I emphasise that the 20% measurement is applied to the whole instrument, including in the case of the pipes, the bag. I asked this question this morning: it does not include the inflated bag, but it does include the bag. I hope that detail is helpful.
I am a great champion of local traditions. This provision would not stop the pipes being played or enjoyed. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has said, the ability to pass on and to donate these instruments so that the next generation can enjoy those that are not under 20% is still available. On that matter, not just because it was raised by the noble Baroness but because I recognise that I want the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society to feel that it has had a proper hearing, I will ask for that meeting to take place.
Baroness Quin
I would like to put on record how grateful I am to the Minister for listening to the concerns and for at least showing willingness to address some of these issues before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
As ever, the noble Baroness is very generous in saying that.
I wonder whether my noble friend Lord De Mauley disagrees with my remarks, rather than my not having responded. One of the things I try to do is always to ask whether we have we answered the question. It may be that he and other noble friends simply do not agree with the analysis.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Given the hour and the debate that follows, perhaps we could explore that another time.
We have sought to bring forward a proportionate proposal on the musical instrument exemption. We are not in a position to support any further extensions of the exemption in what we believe is a very carefully considered package. I want to explore further the question raised by the noble Baroness. On that basis, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cormack
Of course, I shall withdraw my amendment in a moment. As I said before, I regard my noble friend as a friend in every sense but I think it is a pity when your Lordships’ House has a reputation for scrutiny that he has to get up at the Dispatch Box in Committee and virtually rule out any reflection on anything other than the Northumbrian pipes. I am very glad that he is going to reflect on the Northumbrian pipes and I hope he comes up with a good solution. However, the other points made in the debate—not just by myself but by many colleagues—merit more consideration than they appear likely to get. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Poverty Premium
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications of the decline in the use of cash for the “poverty premium” payable by the most financially disadvantaged.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, modern technology has delivered many important benefits to us individually and to society as a whole. But some among us have not been able to take advantage of these trends, in some cases because of unfamiliarity with the particular technology and in other cases, more importantly, because the individual’s personal financial position is too stressed to allow them to do so. I focus my remarks on this last group.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register. I am chairman of CMS Ltd—Cash Management Solutions. The company provides analytical services to banks and retailers on the best methodologies for cash handling. The work of the company has no direct relevance to our debate tonight, but it has given me an insight into the interaction of cash and credit in our society. I say “no direct relevance” except in one sense. It is often argued, as my noble friend may argue shortly, that non-cash transactions—credit cards, direct debits et cetera—are cheaper than cash payments. I am afraid that this assertion is wrong. Non-cash transactions can be safer, more secure and leave a better evidence trail, but they are not cheaper. There is general agreement that non-cash transactions cost about 0.25%—one-quarter of a per cent—to fulfil. By comparison, cash costs are about 0.15%, just over half.
The practical implications of a paper-based payment system were brought home dramatically to me when I was a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House. We examined Instrument 2017/427 entitled the Universal Credit (Tenant Incentive Scheme) Amendment Regulations. Under this statutory instrument, the East Lothian Housing Association wanted to reward its tenants by reducing their rent by £10 if they paid by direct debit or standing order and a further £20 per month where the tenant had no rent arrears.
The purpose of the regulation was to ensure that the reduction in rent payable did not affect the benefits payable under universal credit. They were clearly a trial run which, if proved successful, was likely to be rolled out across the whole UK. So far, so good, but I wondered why there were two rewards and not one. Enquiries with the relevant department revealed that there was, in fact, only one reward. If the tenant did not or could not sign a direct debit or a standing order, they were not eligible for the second £20 reduction, even if they were up to date with the rental payments due.
Inevitably, families on low incomes have to budget very carefully. Signing direct debits cuts across such budgeting because, as will be familiar to the House, a direct debit mandate allows the deduction of the sum due on the date agreed without any reference to the account holder. Many people on low incomes, aware of the ebbs and flows of personal expenditure, not to mention the inevitable emergencies, will be reluctant to sign up to the open-ended commitment of a direct debit. Apart from anything else, if a direct debit is refused and has to be re-presented, there will be a further charge to the account holder by the bank of between £10 and £20. One of the dangers of these regulations was that the most financially stretched in our society were apparently never going to be able to take advantage of the additional room for financial manoeuvre that the proposals would offer. It is not a small amount: £30 a month is £360 over a full year.
That is only the beginning. Noble Lords may care to examine their utility bills carefully. They will see substantial savings for those who can, or are prepared to, sign direct debits. I do not like direct debits and I do not sign them. I have here my recent utility bills. One says: “You will save £33.36 a year on your electricity standing charge if you pay by direct debit”. Another says: “You will get a continuous discount as a lower daily standing charge when you pay by direct debit. Over a year you will receive a discount of £40 on our electricity charges and £50 on your gas charges”. Looking across the whole piece, there are substantial numbers of other things such as council tax, telephone and utility bills generally. It is quite possible to argue that the poorest members of our society are paying £500 to £600 more than those who can sign a direct debit for precisely the same service.
In fairness to the Government, they are aware of some of these charges. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy published a Green Paper in April this year—Command Paper 9595—which has a section headed:
“Ensuring vulnerable consumers are treated fairly”,
which, over a series of paragraphs, explains the problem. It will be very important that, in the follow up to the Green Paper, the Government move from statements of good intent which recognise the problem to implementing policies which actually provide some answers to the issue. These solutions must also apply across all government departments. While this Green Paper is being discussed, other departments are implementing policies, such as those affecting the East Lothian Housing Association, which will accentuate the disadvantage faced by the poorest in our society.
For example, my noble friend’s department, the Treasury, also has a consultation out on cash and digital payments in the new economy. Perhaps inevitably, there is a good deal of focus on the way the use of cash facilitates money laundering and tax evasion. However, the paper also points out that, across the UK, no fewer than 2.7 million people are entirely reliant on cash. Even more significantly, half that number— 1.35 million people—have household incomes of less than £15,000 per annum. Any inability to sign direct debits or standing orders is likely to make a significant reduction in the disposable incomes of these groups.
To conclude, it would be facile to deny the conflicting pressures that exist. No one wants to encourage tax evasion or impose unnecessary administrative and paperwork burdens. However, there is a need for a joined-up, cross-departmental government approach if we are to create, in the words of the Prime Minister,
“a country that works for everyone”.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, on securing this debate. I had the privilege of serving as a member of your Lordships’ Select Committee on Financial Exclusion, which was very ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, in 2016. I commend its report to your Lordships. We looked at a range of issues that were causing financial exclusion. One issue to which we drew attention was the closure of so many bank branches—which has accelerated in the 18 months or so since the committee reported. Even last week we heard of substantial further closures. We understand the trends in how finance works. We would all love to see a situation where people could get bank accounts. A lot more people have them than used to, but there are still about 1.5 million who do not and are still struggling. The irony is that they get into a trap where the less you have the more things cost. That cannot be right. We took evidence from a range of bodies and went to see organisations in Coventry and the east of London which were helping people. We had piles of written evidence.
More than one government department is involved in this and we need to join things up. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about direct debits going out on a specific day. Many people who are on zero-hours contracts have periods when they are paid erratically. For them, it is extremely difficult to tell in advance whether they will have a particular amount in their account when they do not know how many hours they are going to be working that week or month. The banks have a basic bank account which we know does not make them money. We discovered that very little effort was made to promote it and I can understand why.
There is a need for joined-up thinking. We also discovered that the primary source of taking people to court for non-payment of rent or anything else was the public sector. It was the public sector that was leading the charge in this. I have a big disagreement with the Government in how they handle housing benefit here; we do it differently at home. I believe that rent should be paid to the landlord, not to the tenant. I understand that it is very nice to be able to say that we teach people to manage their own accounts. That is all very well, but anyone who has served a constituency over the years, and run advice centres, knows the sorts of people who are vulnerable. Think of the pressures on a young mum who is on her own with two or three youngsters. Back home, on the day when the money was due to be paid the sky would darken with all the vultures ready to pounce. There were crooked lenders and all sorts. There was an army of bailiffs running around trying to chase people down for rent. That is a disincentive to bring housing stock into the rental market.
Rent should be paid directly to the landlord. At least that would guarantee a roof over the family’s head, which would be some progress. That system works far better than leaving it open for someone to pounce on a vulnerable person, who is often a woman on her own with children. They may have addiction problems or all sorts of other issues. Under our system, at least the roof over their head is paid for and there is therefore no need for bailiffs to go chasing round trying to track people down. There are so many temptations because of the demand to get hold of that cash, and in an admittedly small number of cases, exorbitant lenders go round chasing after people, particularly those with addiction issues. The people who suffer most in those circumstances are the children in the family. In some cases, they are in a bad enough condition as it is.
I ask the Minister to take account of this issue, which was raised by some members of the committee when it was sitting. There are bank closures and the only way to have a card is to have an account. But if your account is charging exorbitant rates of interest then if you draw down cash on the card you pay even more than if you are making a purchase. It is a vicious cycle and I hope that the Government can join up and break it, once and for all.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hodgson on bringing this debate to the House. He has a great track record for identifying those who are vulnerable or those in need in an otherwise prosperous society, which speaks for itself.
There should be no doubt over the Government’s commitment to fighting poverty. We all recognise that progress has been achieved. Since 2010, there are 1 million fewer people in poverty, including 300,000 fewer children. The record high employment rate is a key part of that positive story. The House will be aware that there are now 600,000 fewer children living in workless households. No one here needs me to remind them about the cycle of deprivation where no one in the house has work, no one has an example of work and there is little hope. So having 600,000 more children living in a household where someone is in work is hugely important.
Nevertheless, I have a great deal of sympathy with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, because in the 1970s, in the last century, I worked for many years as a social scientist for Frank Field at the Child Poverty Action Group. He employed me to undertake a longitudinal study of the incomes, spending patterns and lives of families below or at the poverty line. For inclusion, a household had to have at least three children and to live at or below national assistance. At one primary school, St Matthias in Bethnal Green, a third of the children qualified. My task was to get them to write expenditure diaries. It became extraordinarily obvious, in the way that some of us have also seen in our constituencies, that if you have a low, unpredictable, unreliable income, it is incredibly difficult to live within your means. If your income is totally predictable and your expenditure is predictable, then maybe it is easier but you cannot buy massive bargain containers of food, you are living from hand to mouth, buying products from the corner shop, borrowing money where you can.
More than that, there is no scope for an emergency, a disaster, a high day or a low day. If your child gets picked up and taken to prison somewhere far from home, no one is going to pay your expenditure. A further quality, which I was so aware of, is the pressures of being poor and feeling you have to do the right thing by your children. It may be cheaper to wear national health spectacles—it may be that I, working at the Child Poverty Action Group, had my children wearing national health spectacles—but the families I worked with said to me, “You wouldn’t expect my children to wear poverty on their face, would you?”
The poverty premium is all too clear. The less money you have and the less reliable the source of income, the more difficult—and, frequently, the more costly—it is to budget economically. The concept of the poverty premium was first used in 1963 by American sociologist David Caplovitz. More recently, the Social Market Foundation defined it as,
“the extra cost that households on low incomes incur when purchasing the same essential goods and services as households on higher incomes”.
The core components include access to cash, access to credit, choice of fuel tariff, paper billing for fuel and telecommunications, area-based premiums and insurance costs. There has been a great deal of debate about Wonga, but Wonga was used by very many people who had no other means or option to raise the money they did. The University of Bristol a couple of years ago found that the most punishing aspect was failing to switch to the best fuel tariff, accounting for almost half of the total premium. The cost to the average low-income household was an extra £233 every year.
The poverty premium includes factors imposed on low-income people often as a result of the areas in which they can afford to live. Examples include accessing affordable shops and retailers, and the use of expensive fuel prepayment meters, particularly common among social housing tenants. Others are discretionary factors: low-income individuals make choices which are more costly, frequently as a consequence of less knowledge or education. I often think of rail transport: all these students can manage to get from the north to the south of the United Kingdom for what looks like a minute amount of money, but the low-paid, the less educated and the more pressed people with less time, who cannot spend hours on the internet, pay very large fees indeed.
We are witnessing powerful trends in the UK. In 2017, there were more transactions made by debit cards than cash for the first time. This trend is expected to continue as more customers and retailers become more comfortable with contactless payments. I am not decrying the advantages, relating to money laundering, theft, and all sorts of other advantages. Of course, young people hardly know what cash is: they are huge users of contactless payments. However, as the noble Lord mentioned, a very substantial number—2.7 million people—still rely on cash. People from low-income households, and many others, rely on cash. Indeed, only today I talked to a noble friend who said that he could cope only with cash and he could not cope with the internet, digital media and so on.
It is easy to expect that everyone is going in this new exciting direction without realising that, inadvertently, it has the potential of creating more gaps, more divisions and more difficulty. The higher cost of accessing money is a component of the poverty premium but only accounts for a small share. This cost is incurred largely by utilising pay-to-use ATMs. Historically, that has been an issue with deprived areas lacking free-to-use cash machines. I am pleased that LINK is beginning to look at these difficulties and differences.
I urge the Minister to listen to the comments raised in the debate. We are excited by the financial exclusion working party. It met once in March and is about to meet again. Of course we welcome progress and the opportunities of the new digital world, but we must not forget those who are disadvantaged or left behind and potentially become more vulnerable as a result of these strides forward.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for the opportunity to talk about the poverty premium. It is a very important debate. I do not know if the noble Lord picked up the good news that Lloyds is not going to charge people for unplanned overdrafts or the announcement over the weekend that Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates have got together behind Fair by Design to support the wage stream so that, if you are working and have earned some money, you could draw it down at a flat rate on a number of occasions throughout the week. Therefore, in a sense, pay day never really arrives; it is when you need it.
Maybe there is a problem that, when you are the poorest of the poor, you find it very difficult to get the deals and the good food necessary to keep you and your children healthy. Instead, you end up with loads of stuff full of salt and sugar, badly put together, that in the end will affect your health and ability to function. Therefore, we know that these are really interesting developments.
My own Bill, the Creditworthiness Assessment Bill, which has passed on to the other place—I do not know if I am allowed to mention it—is a simple attempt at stopping people who need credit paying through the nose. It is all part of the poverty premium.
I come from the poverty premium. My mother, for instance, was a lovely Irish lady who if you gave her a pound, it burned a hole in her pocket and she would have to go out and spend it. She knew where all the bad deals were. She knew how to waste her money. She knew how to cry when we were dragged before the court. So I come from this kind of background and what I find very difficult is that, when people talk about the poor, I am sorry to say that they seem to talk about another species: “The poor will always be with us”. We are not in the Victorian period, where we were telling the poor off; we have gone the other way. We have embraced them. We love them. We actually really like them because they do good stuff for us. They make us feel good. They make us feel that, if we can do something for the poor, then there has been a good reason for us to pass through life. I do not really like that, nor do I like the old method. I would like to find a way that, instead of ducking and diving and bobbing and weaving, lets us recognise that if you are poor all the doors are closed.
So how do you break open the doors and bring about a change in somebody’s life? I was very fortunate, because I could use the prison system. Every time I got nicked, I learned something—somebody was there to teach me. Unfortunately, we do not have that opportunity now. If you go into prison, you go in bad and come out worse, because rehabilitation has gone down the tubes. We do not have those social workers, or the NHS sending out wonderful paramedics to go into the community to help mother nurse her child. We do not have all that kind of pastoral care that we used to have when I was in my early years and in my teens. We have got rid of all that, and instead we have a poor who we embrace, and who in a sense we would like to find a way of indulging. But every time we do that, we do not move them away from poverty and, instead, we tie them up.
Interestingly, in Brazil, President Lula brought in something called the family allowance. It was a simple thing: you gave the mother $104 a month, but she had to do two things—it came with strings attached. One was that mummy had to go to the hospital and to the doctor regularly, because if she died and the children were left on their own, they would go feral, and then the police would get involved and there would be murders, and all sorts of things like that. The other condition was that the children had to go to school.
If we really want to do something about poor people, we have to break their poverty. We—as a Government, as a party, and as a Parliament—have to find ways of breaking through those doors, and we will not be able to do that in a liberal, loving sort of way. We are going to have to impose some order and structure on people’s lives who do not have order and structure. We have to find a way of breaking through those doors so that we can move them out of this miasma, out of this place where we are quite happy to keep coming up with wonderful new ducking and diving, bobbing and weaving—things that change nothing.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, on securing this debate and on his eloquent and forceful opening speech.
The poverty premium—the poor paying more—is a very serious problem, and it is highly likely to be made worse as the use of cash continues to decline. But there are other factors that will make the poverty premium worse. There is the widening gap between household income and household expenditure—on average £900 last year, and likely to get worse. Figures due to be released this week will show wage increases to be once again lower than inflation, intensifying the squeeze on just-about-managing families. This comes at a time when there is a huge lack of financial resilience.
The FCA’s excellent report on the financial lives of UK adults, published in October last year, makes for worrying reading. The survey shows that around 15 million people have no or low financial resilience. The survey also shows that 4 million of these people are already in financial difficulty: they have not paid domestic bills or met credit commitments in three or more of the last six months. In addition, 4 million of these financially vulnerable people have never used the internet. All these figures are worrying. They remind us of the existence of real poverty, of the huge numbers in or on the edge of real financial difficulty, and, importantly for this evening’s debate, they remind us about the lack of digital access in a society that is becoming increasingly digital. I will return to that theme in a moment.
The 2016 University of Bristol study, already referred to by the noble Baroness, set out its views about what constituted the poverty premium. It saw it as the poor paying more for energy, telecoms, insurance, food and grocery shopping, access to money and use of credit, and it estimated the poverty premium at £490 per household per year, but with a huge variation within that average—for some households, as much as nearly £800 a year. These are all lower than the £1,300 per annum estimate made by Save the Children in 2010, but Bristol cites methodological differences for the different outcomes, which raises the question of the need for reliable data if we are to advance this kind of discussion.
The Social Market Foundation, in its paper of March this year, acknowledges the need for better measurement and puts forward its own proposals for a reliable set of metrics. I commend this approach. If we are to measure the effect of the decline in the use of cash or, indeed, of any factor on the poverty premium, it is vital that we have an agreed set of metrics. Do the Government agree with that? If they do, what can they do to help establish proper tools for assessment?
The Government are in fact, slightly indirectly, already engaged in this area. The big society may have all but disappeared with its inventor, but its legacy lives on in Big Society Capital. The fund is developing what it describes as,
“a targeted holistic programme designed to eliminate the poverty premium by 2027”.
HMG are the majority shareholder in Big Society Capital. Can the Minister say what part they are playing in this project, and how advanced the project is? Is it, for example, considering tonight’s question on the impact of the decline in the use of cash? On this issue, I note that the Treasury has just concluded a consultation on cash and digital payments in the new economy. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when we are likely to see the report.
In the call for evidence to that inquiry, the Government recognise the use of cash as an entirely legitimate choice. It is certainly that, but it is also often an entirely rational choice or a matter of necessity for people in poverty. There is, furthermore, no justification for those with least money paying more by using cash than by using other means to buy the same services. This has special force when what people are buying with cash are vital and basic necessities. There is no real justification for the premium. It should not exist, and it certainly should not be allowed to get worse as cash usage declines. The premium is either exploitative—it frequently is—or the consequence of poor market practices: neither situation is desirable or fair.
The Government will need to take action as cash usage declines. In particular, the Government will have to take urgent steps to remove or ameliorate the digital disadvantages of the poor. It is the lack of digital access and/or digital savvy that is most likely to preserve, or worsen, the premium as cash usage declines.
Critically, free access to cash must be maintained, especially for those living in financially deprived areas. This is a current concern. The recent disputes over the transfer fees in the ATM system between banks and the operators involved raise the prospect of the removal of ATMs and the introduction of more pay-to-use machines. This problem is likely to become more acute as cash usage declines. What is at risk is both free access to cash and the creation of areas in which there is effectively no access, free or paid.
I am aware that the LINK organisation has promised to maintain free access ATMs where needed and to replace any machines withdrawn by operators from disadvantaged areas. I worry, however, about what this promise is worth if LINK’s shareholders can override it at will, as they can. This will present a key test for the Government. Removal of free-to-use ATMs from financially deprived areas will lead to a decline in the use of cash and will certainly worsen the poverty premium. It would be good to hear the Minister say that he will not allow that to happen.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, both on securing this debate and on introducing it so precisely. As he identified, those dependent on cash are living in an increasingly disadvantageous world, and the use of cash has reduced very significantly over the last decade. The rate of decline, as new technologies are employed, will mean that quite a small proportion of the population will be dependent on cash. Those people are, however, dependent on a disadvantageous system, as was so clearly identified in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, supported immediately by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who pointed out just why the poor can be at such an obvious disadvantage. One obvious aspect is that direct debit has its rewards—we all know the incentives to choose it—but you need a regular income and certainty of payment before you can take advantage of it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, emphasised the fact that we live in a society where unemployment figures are relatively low. The trouble, however, is that an awful lot of our fellow citizens are in employment but not under the old criteria—they are on zero-hours contracts, and a person with an uncertain income, on basic wages, can only be in a position of extreme disadvantage when making payments. The advantages of direct debit, of not having to pay excessively for credit and being able to access money easily are not available to those who are on uncertain incomes and poor.
That is why we need considerable action by the Government, as has been called for in this debate. It is comforting that the Government are at least aware of the problem and addressing certain aspects of the decreasingly cash-using society. Action will be necessary, and the Government are not shaping up to the requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, emphasised with his usual accuracy and passion the extent to which people living on very low incomes are a burden on society to which society pays only lip service. If not, in an economy in which we are supposedly making so much progress, food banks would not be proliferating all over the country. Furthermore, some people with clear earning patterns are dependent on food banks, because their pay is below the necessary level of income.
That is why I think we have to do what the noble Lord, Lord Bird, identified. We have to take responsibility for getting people out of poverty. We have to address ourselves to crucial issues such as the question of the minimum wage, which needs to be at a level that guarantees that households can avoid poverty. We need to tackle the question of zero hours, and change our employment laws so that this particular malign development, which has occurred over the last decade in such profusion, is brought under control. We also need to tackle how benefits are paid. Universal credit seems to be engineered to guarantee that people are plunged into poverty in certain circumstances. It cannot be right that we have a benefit that renders people vulnerable at crucial times through the way in which it is paid.
This has been a stimulating debate, which has addressed the issue of the poor. We all ought to feel the greatest concern about that: we cannot constantly talk about an economy that is making progress when child poverty, and poverty generally in our society, is as pronounced as it is today.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, who started this debate by setting out very clearly the paradox with which we are faced. On the one hand, he said that there are 2.7 million people who are entirely dependent on cash, and then he used a series of excellent examples, drawn from his own experience, that show the great benefit to be achieved by those who can make payment in other forms—in his examples, direct debit mandates.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, drew on his experience from the excellent work of the Financial Exclusion Committee in your Lordships’ House, and talked about the need to secure access to banking services. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, drew on her experience from her time with the Child Poverty Action Group, and made the hopeful point about the significant reduction there has been in the number of workless households in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, gave positive examples from Lloyds Bank about the cost of credit, but talked about the impact of that on health and the need for people to have order and structure in their lives. I thought of his memorable maiden speech in this House, when he said, if I am correct, that the reason he was able to do so much to help the poor in this country, which he undoubtedly has, was because he did not have a sentimental bone in his body about poverty. That is not a contradiction. Indeed, it is important that we look correctly at those people we are seeking to help. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, talked about another level of exclusion, particularly digital exclusion, and the 4 million people who have never used the internet. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about how uncertainty of income flow can exacerbate the disadvantage that people feel.
I will set out briefly what the Government are doing in these important areas and then come to some of the questions that have been raised. When it comes to tackling poverty in general, a key element was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I assure the House that the Government are focused on lifting people out of poverty. Indeed, the proportion of people in absolute poverty both before and after taking into account housing costs is now at a record low. Additionally, real disposable household income per person is above its pre-crisis peak and is 3.4% higher than at the start of 2010. We know that over 3 million more people are in work, and that there have been improvements in the national living wage, and of course we have seen a rise in the tax thresholds.
That said, I appreciate the concerns which have been expressed around the isolation felt by people who are unfamiliar with the digital payment services that are becoming ever more prevalent. We know that 8.4% of adults have never used the internet—instead of a percentage, we were given an absolute number by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey—while many more people are missing out on the opportunities that the digital world offers, from online banking to easier access to direct debit payments. We want to make sure that everyone can access all the benefits of digital banking. To that end, the Government are actively committed to tackling the root causes of digital and financial exclusion. The digital strategy, which was published last year, committed the Government to enabling people in every part of society and irrespective of age, gender, ethnicity or socioeconomic status to access the opportunities of the internet. That point was brought out by my noble friend Lady Bottomley when she used the illustration of students searching the internet for travel fares. Many apps can provide those services, but if you are digitally excluded, clearly you are not going to be able to take advantage of those deals.
The Government have now established the Digital Skills Partnership, which will bring together stakeholders from the private, public and charitable sectors in a joint effort to help people increase their digital skill levels. This will build on the free digital skills training opportunities that our corporate partners have pledged as part of the digital strategy. Some 4 million training opportunities were pledged, with 2 million having already been delivered.
Similarly, reducing financial exclusion is a key government priority. After the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and his committee had done their work we created the Financial Inclusion Policy Forum, which was referred to by my noble friend Lady Bottomley. It met for the first time in March and is due to meet again soon. This is driving better co-ordination across the sector. Government Ministers, regulators, industry and consumer groups are working together through the forum to ensure that people, regardless of their background or income, have access to useful and affordable financial products and services. For example, the forum recognised that a key challenge is tackling the issue of a lack of access to affordable credit. A sub-group of forum members has been established to look at how that work can be taken forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Bird, referred to his Creditworthiness Assessment Bill. I often pay tribute to him because in the course of the Bill, without the legislation actually making it on to the statute book, he managed to get £2 million out of the Treasury for the rent recognition challenge, which has been launched as a way of coming up with innovative solutions to precisely the challenges that his Bill identifies.
The Government recognise that people are increasingly moving away from cash and towards digital payments, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson set out. While the Government support these developments, we also recognise the continuing importance of cash, especially to the more vulnerable members of society. For those people who depend on cash today and in the future, we will need to ensure that that access is continued. An individual reliant on cash will be penalised if they can access cash only at an ATM which charges for cash withdrawal. That is why the point made about the LINK system is so important and I shall come back to it when I respond to the questions. The UK has today one of the most extensive free-to-use ATM networks in the world. Around 80% of the ATM network is free to use and 97% of all ATM transactions are conducted through free-to-use ATMs. The Government continue to work with industry and the regulators to ensure that widespread free access to cash is maintained.
I turn now to some of the important questions raised in the debate. My noble friend Lady Bottomley asked specifically about the LINK programme and its availability. In January 2018, LINK announced that it would enhance its financial inclusion programme to include all ATMs that are a kilometre or further from the next free-to-use ATM. The Government have been engaging and will continue to engage with regulators and industry, including LINK, to ensure that widespread free access to cash is maintained. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, talked about people paying for high-cost credit. The Government welcome the FCA’s update and its proposal to cap the cost of the rent-to-own programmes that have been introduced. It is important that these measures are effective and the Government will continue to work with the FCA to ensure that all customers are treated fairly.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, talked about the closure of bank branches. While of course that is a commercial decision, I know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, John Glen, recently visited several small and remote communities in Scotland to experience at first hand what they were going through as the result of a lack of access to banking services. That is why the Government support the industry’s access to banking standard, which sets out the steps that banks must follow when they decide to close a branch, including giving at least 12 weeks’ notice and providing information on how customers can make alternative arrangements. Moreover, we have the post office banking framework agreement set up with 28 high-street banks. This enables 99% of personal banking and 95% of small business customers to carry out their everyday banking at one of the Post Office’s 11,500-plus branches.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, talked about improving the incomes of the poorest. The statistics he used on real household incomes are those on which we should focus, and are the reason that we supported the national living wage. The lowest-paid, those in the fifth percentile, saw their wages grow by almost 7% above inflation between April 2015 and April 2017. Over 1 million people, the lowest earners, have been taken out of income tax altogether since 2015.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, asked about access to credit and gave the example of Wonga. The Government are committed to facilitating sustainable financial services to give consumers greater choice in accessing credit. This includes support for the credit union sector, which provides an accessible alternative to high-cost credit. In the Autumn Budget, the Government announced their intention to help the sector expand by increasing the number of potential members of credit unions from 2 million to 3 million. The call for evidence has been issued and is now closed. The helpful note on this I received from colleagues simply says that a formal response will be made “in due course”, which I know is not going to add a great deal to the sum of human knowledge, but it recognises that we have taken this subject seriously, we are calling on the evidence and are reviewing it as we speak.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, also asked about maintaining access to LINK ATMs. I have given that answer in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, on the same point.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about the use of food banks. We recognise this and are constantly reviewing research carried out by organisations including the Trussell Trust to add to our understanding of food-bank use, and will consider requirements to add further to the evidence base. Food banks are not unique to the United Kingdom but are an international phenomenon and an important element of our society. They are a civil-society response to people in need and we ought to recognise that, but also redouble our efforts to ensure that people do not have to access their services as far as possible.
The Government recognise the profound impact that the rapid rise in digital payments is having on our country, with which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, began our debate. As technology plays an ever-greater role in our lives, we recognise that the Government must support innovation and make the most of new technology, while ensuring that no one is left behind. That is the importance of cash. As I hope I have made clear to noble Lords today, the Government are working with industry and regulators to ensure that all members of our society benefit from the potential of digitalisation and that cash continues to be accessible to all who rely on it, and in that sense this continues to be a country that works for everyone.
Ivory Bill
Monday 10th September 2018
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Ivory Act 2018 View all Ivory Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 119-II Second marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (10 Sep 2018)
Lord De Mauley
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, many of the objects that will require registration under the Clause 10 requirements will be low in value. This will include old pianos offered for sale privately for £50 or small domestic objects such as mirrors with surrounds in mahogany inlaid with thin ivory strips selling for perhaps £30. As I previously indicated, there is no compelling reason for us to discourage the reuse of such antiques. If the registration fee is set too high, only the more valuable ivory items would be worth registering, and lower-value ones would end up being thrown away. Whether or not it is intended to charge the fee as a fixed percentage of the value of the item or a flat fee, I believe it is sensible to impose a cap. If nothing else, it will encourage efficiency in those who operate the database system. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I shall be brief. I will speak to Amendment 31, which is purely a probing amendment. Following Second Reading, it struck me that the success of this Bill would very much depend on the take-up rate of the use of the register, so my amendment is aimed at trying to probe a bit of that. I noted that in the Bill, while plenty of powers are given to the Secretary of State to charge fees for registration, there is no duty alongside that, telling the authorities what they should be trying to do. My amendment is aimed at trying to put a bit of duty alongside the powers.
I notice that the success of curbing drink-driving in the UK has been very much driven by the fact that people in the country now expect people not to drink-drive. We need to ensure that nothing stands in the way of people developing a feeling that ivory has a special and difficult thing associated with it. Therefore, they should comply with this law enthusiastically, because it will help the problem that we have all been talking about. I do not think I can add any more.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on these two amendments. I think we all accept that the cost of registration should not be prohibitive. Equally, I have to say that I think a blanket fee of £5 is unrealistic. It should not, however, be used as a money-raising opportunity, as some government fee systems have been found to do. In his letter to us after Second Reading, the Minister made it clear that the fees would be based on a cost-recovery calculation. Fine, but he went on to say that the calculation would be based on the cost of building a new IT system. At that point, alarm bells started to ring. I am sure that the Government would accept that they have a rather shaky reputation for delivering IT systems on budget.
I therefore hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to reassure us that the cost will not be prohibitive and that it will take into account the ability to pay of a wide range of potential traders who might want to use the system, taking on board the points that have been made that they will not always be the professionals and those who are able to pay large fees.
We have referred to the registration scheme several times and I know that the Minister says that we will have further details of it, but it would be helpful if he could clarify the timescale for it. Will we definitely have more details before Report?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, both amendments relate to the fees that can be set by the Secretary of State when registering an item containing ivory. When owners register their items under the exemptions for items of low ivory content, musical instruments, sales to museums and portrait miniatures, it is only right that they pay a fee for the service provided. This fee will contribute to the cost of building and administering the registration system.
On my noble friend Lord De Mauley’s amendment, we need to be careful about setting a fee on the face of the Bill—that is, in primary legislation—as, over time, circumstances which will need to be taken into account may change and mean that it is necessary to revise the fee—in either direction.
To reiterate, the Government intend that the fee will be small and proportionate, but I cannot agree with my noble friend that a fee of £5, set out in primary legislation, is appropriate. The fee will be dependent on the cost of the IT system and its administration and will be determined in accordance with Her Majesty’s Treasury’s guidelines with regard to cost recovery. I hope that alarm bells are not now ringing. We aim for the system to be as simple to use as possible.
On Amendment 31, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I recognise his interest in ensuring that fees are not set at a rate that would discourage registration and entirely share his view. The Government are finalising the specifications for the registration system. Further details will be available in due course, but I do not have a time for them as yet. If I get one, I will write to noble Lords and advise them. Work to date has included input from a range of stakeholders, including those most likely and most frequently to use the system; for example, representatives from the Association of Art & Antiques Dealers and the Music Industries Association. We want to ensure that we understand their needs. Our aim will be to develop a system that is simple to use and cost effective.
We recognise that many items registered under these exemptions are likely to be of a lower value than those that qualify as exempt under Clause 2, so I can assure noble Lords that the registration fee will reflect that. As I have said, the Government are taking into account a wide range of opinions. I reassure noble Lords that we recognise the intent behind the amendments and acknowledge that it is in no one’s interest to have fees that are unacceptably high. I hope that my noble friend will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw his amendment.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I suppose that I shall have to be happy, at least for this eventing, with my noble friend’s assurance that the fee will be small. For this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cormack
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is designed to simplify the bureaucratic arrangements which will follow the enactment of this Bill.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord De Mauley has been made tolerably happy for the moment. I am delighted about that, even if it is in a very small matter. I hope that on an equally small matter, although one with real repercussions, I can be made happy, because, as I explain in the explanatory statement:
“This amendment is designed to simplify the bureaucratic arrangements which will follow the enactment of this Bill”.
This amendment does not really concern elephants at all, and I hope that my noble friend—whichever noble friend responds—will be able to accept it. It provides that the certificate,
“remains valid if the ownership of the item passes by inheritance to a member of the family of the registered owner”.
I am not even asking that it should remain valid if it is given to somebody outside the family or is left in a will to somebody without a family connection.
Many such objects will be on the premises. Although I hope it will be many years before our noble friend the Duke of Wellington goes to a higher place, if the things that remain his property in No. 1 London or at Stratfield Saye pass to his son or another member of the family by inheritance, it seems quite unnecessary to have to go through the bureaucratic rigmarole again. I really hope that I will get a sympathetic response to this extremely modest—but I believe entirely sensible—proposal. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is trying to achieve but, with the best will in the world, I am not sure that it is practical. If an item is important enough to be passed down through inheritance to another family member, it is also important that the new owner has an up-to-date registration certificate for it.
The Bill requires that if there is a change of owner a fresh application should be made to register the item. This is important because it will ensure that the registration system has an up-to-date record of the name of the owner and their contact details and so on. Without this change of ownership recorded on the register, we are concerned that confusion might arise as to who has the legal obligations of ownership spelled out elsewhere in the Bill. If an item appears on the market or if it is suspected of being a forgery, the enforcement officers will not know whom to contact to clarify the position.
I am trying to give the noble Lord something to be cheerful about but I do not think that this is the way to go about it. I do not think an automatic transfer of an item and the registration certificate would work without the associated paper trail to show the current ownership.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment is to provide that a person who inherits a registered ivory item from a family member would not need to reregister it under Clause 10, regardless of whether he or she intends to deal in the item themselves. Clause 11(2) places duties on a registered owner to notify the Secretary of State when he or she becomes aware of any relevant information relating to the registered item becoming invalid or incomplete. A person inheriting a registration in an ivory item would therefore be subject to this duty at the point he or she became responsible for the registration. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, outlined very compelling reasons. If a person inheriting or taking possession of an ivory item is unaware that the item is registered, the Government would expect that person to decide whether he or she wants to sell or hire the item and to register it accordingly.
The main point I want to reference is that we are working extremely hard with all concerned to ensure that the self-registration of ivory items will be straight-forward and as simple as possible for those expected to use the registration system. For the security of the next generation in ensuring the item is as it should be and is properly registered, I am very sorry to have to disappoint my noble friend. It is in the interest of the next generation that we have the provisions for the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, outlined rather better than I have. On that basis, I respectfully ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cormack
I am sorely tempted to divide the House. I say to my noble friend that all you need is a simple form that informs that the new owner is by inheritance the Marquess of This or Mr That. That is all that has to be done. You do not have to go through a whole paraphernalia of reregistering. That is what I am against. I hope we can come up with a formula, my noble friend and I, which will be acceptable on Report. With that hope, which is almost certainly a vain one, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Verification of exempted items
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide for the verification of the exempted status of an item containing ivory.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would allow the Secretary of State to create a verification system to enable a person intending to purchase an item containing ivory to check that it has been registered as exempt or has an exemption certificate.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, this proposed new clause would allow the Secretary of State to create a verification system to enable a person intending to purchase an item containing ivory to check that it has been registered as exempt or has an exemption certificate. That is imperative to ensure that the exemption process is robust and deliverable. Defra has stated that:
“The compliance processes will enable sellers to demonstrate that their items meet the relevant exemption, and thus that their use in commercial dealing is permitted under the Bill. The processes will also enable potential purchasers to assure themselves that they are acting in accordance with the ban”.
The term “assure themselves” is interesting and seems to indicate that a buyer has less responsibility to ensure compliance with the ban than a seller. Given that the definition of dealing in Clause 1 specifically includes buying ivory, we believe that a trustworthy system needs to be available so that buyers can ensure that they are complying with the law.
There are many reasons why a buyer may need to verify that an item is exempt; for example, when purchasing an item online. A buyer may not even be aware of what a legitimate exemption certificate should look like and may seek the reassurance of an independent confirmation. We are also aware of cases involving legal CITES Article 10 certificates and fraudulent copies being used to conceal illegal ivory. Sadly, unscrupulous dealers may well attempt to contravene the ban though such tactics. At the same time, an added advantage would be that a failed verification check could bring an individual to the notice of the authorities and be used to support a prosecution.
I hope that noble Lords will see the sense of the proposals we are making today, and that the Minister will feel able to take this proposal away and come back with suggestions as to how a robust verification process could be implemented. Of course, key to that will be the infamous IT system, when it is in force, and the issue of data, data protection and access. I realise that there are more complications to this than I am suggesting, but we feel nevertheless that buyers should have the right to make those checks and I therefore beg to move.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I think that this is a most sensible suggestion. The definition of “dealing” includes buying ivory objects, so how else is a buyer to avoid breaking the law, unless they have a means of verifying either that a de minimis object has been registered, or that an exemption certificate has been issued for an outstanding one?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, the intention of this amendment has been set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, so I will not repeat it. The Government agree that a potential buyer must be able to verify that it is legal to purchase the item before finalising the sale. If the purchase is in person, the buyer will need to examine the exemption certificate issued for a rare and most important item, as this will need to accompany the item at the point of sale. The buyer will also be able to confirm that it is genuine via the online system. For online sales, the seller should confirm that an exemption certificate has been issued and will be transferred with the item. As with offline sales, the buyer will be able to confirm that it is genuine.
A buyer wishing to check the legality of selling or hiring an item registered as being exempt under Clause 10 will be able to look it up on the database, through the item’s reference number. This number should be provided by the seller. It is in the seller’s interest to ensure that the information is available to provide the buyer with confidence. The potential buyer will then be able to compare the photos and the description on the registration system with the object that they intend to purchase. The registration system is currently being developed, in consultation with many of those who are likely to use it, as we have just discussed. We are able to do this without making regulations and, as I have set out, we intend to include this functionality in the new system. Guidance will set out the best way for a seller to assure a buyer that they are able to legally purchase an item, and enable a buyer to satisfy themselves that they are able to legally purchase that item. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister for that reply. I am pleased to hear the stages that she set out and confirmation that there will be that access to a verification system. I was disappointed in her last comment that we do not need regulation on this, which is part of what our amendment proposes. I think this is straying into the whole area of the Delegated Powers Committee report; it queried the extent to which information like this should be in the Bill rather than just being taken in the form of guidance, which I think is what she said. I would like to look at this in more detail. Again, it comes back to when we will have more detail before Report but, obviously, at the moment I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Grantchester
“Report on exemptions to the ivory ban
(1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each calendar year, the Secretary of State must prepare a report on certified and registered exemptions to the prohibition; and—(a) lay a copy of that report before both Houses of Parliament, and(b) publish the report.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a year if section 3 of this Act has not been in force at any time in that year.(3) A report prepared under this section must include the following information—(a) the number of applications received;(b) the number of applications rejected;(c) the number of appeals received;(d) the number of exemptions granted on appeal;(e) the number of exemption certificates and registered exemptions revoked; and(f) any other information that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) The information listed in subsection (3) must be listed by category of item.(5) The Secretary of State is responsible for prescribing the categories referred to in subsection (4).(6) The Secretary of State is not required to include in a report any information that, in his or her opinion, it would be inappropriate to include on the ground that to do so—(a) would or might be unlawful, or(b) might enable the identification of the owner.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish an annual report on exemptions to the ivory ban. The report must provide statistical information about applications, appeals and revocations by category of item as determined by the Secretary of State.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 35 standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones. We need as much transparency as possible about whether this system that has been devised for granting exemptions is operating as intended. While the Government have committed to publishing headline figures about the number of exemptions granted, we believe that breaking down these figures into more meaningful categories of exemption and item type would provide us with important data and allow for confidence in the Act.
We recognise, however, that there is a balance to be struck between transparency and privacy, given that we have been led to expect that only a small number of items will be exempted on the grounds that they are the rarest and most important of their type and that it could therefore prove quite easy to identify these items and link them to certain individuals. When this point was debated in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, David Rutley MP, advised that it was unlikely the Government could publish more detail on the specific items exempted for data protection reasons but gave an undertaking to consider whether the headline figure could be broken down further to cover broad categories of items, such as statues, reliefs or furniture, for example.
Given that there was such an overwhelming support for a total ban, better transparency is needed on how the ban will work, how effective each exemption has been, and how workable the regulations and monitoring have proved to be. This amendment reflects the pledge by instructing the Secretary of State to prescribe the appropriate categories for the purpose of publication and specifically to preclude the release of any information that would be unlawful or might lead to the identification of the owner. I am sure the Minister will agree that such transparency can be assured through amendments such as this one. I beg to move.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, the Government are in full agreement with the principle of this amendment. We acknowledge the importance of transparency and providing information to the public. That is why, once the ban is in force, we intend to share publicly information on how the ivory ban is working in practice, as this will be essential to ensuring public confidence in the ban and the supporting systems. I therefore assure the noble Lord that we already intend to publish headline data on the number of registered items and exemption certificates issued and revoked each year, as well as the appeals, in line with the Data Protection Act.
Furthermore, regarding subsection (4) in the amendment, I confirm that we will further break down headline figures as far as we are able—for instance, to cover broad categories of items such as statues, reliefs and furniture. In light of these assurances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I am very happy to receive such assurances and feel that maybe I have been the lucky one to be satisfied tonight. I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps we can examine on Report how this may be put in the Bill so that more substance can be given to her reassurances. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.