House of Commons
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(5 years, 12 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
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Dominic Raab)
The Government have published 106 technical notices addressing the no-deal scenario. We are striving for a good deal with our European Union partners, but we will be ready for all outcomes from the negotiations.
Gerald Jones
Recent National Audit Office estimates state that if customs declarations are required for trading between the UK and the EU, the total number of declarations could increase by about 360%, from 55 million currently on non-EU trade to 225 million. What estimate has the Minister made of the additional staff that will be required and, not least, the likely tailbacks that could ensue at UK ports?
Dominic Raab
There certainly is a risk of no deal, especially if the EU engages in a deliberately intransigent approach. The hon. Gentleman asks about staff. We are recruiting 300 extra staff, with a further 600 planned. We have given a range of advice through our 106 technical notices, half of which gave advice on customs procedures for businesses. There have been 300,000 letters sent to current customs users and 145,000 letters to VAT-registered businesses.
Liz McInnes
The Health Secretary told pharmaceutical companies to stockpile six weeks’ worth of medicines in case of a no-deal Brexit because of potential delays at the border. Will the Brexit Secretary confirm whether he envisages circumstances where companies could be asked to stockpile for longer than six weeks?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue, not least because Government and the pharmaceutical industry already liaise on stockpiling for far longer periods in other circumstances, including in relation to vaccines. We will keep it under review, but this is something the industry is used to doing and we are used to co-operating with it.
Sandy Martin
In September, the Borders Delivery Group reported that 11 of the 12 major projects to replace or change key IT systems were at risk of not being delivered on time or in a workable condition. Many of my constituents who work at the port of Felixstowe are at their wits’ end about how this is going to work. Can the Secretary of State tell us what is going to be done with those IT systems?
Dominic Raab
We had an extended Cabinet session last month. We looked at a whole range of action points right across the piece, including some of the IT issues to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We want to make sure we are in the best position to manage, avoid or mitigate any risk in a no-deal scenario, but of course we are striving for the best deal with our European partners.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
A very significant number of automotive parts enter the UK and the European Union from third countries for just-in-time delivery. It seems to work, doesn’t it?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend will know that that is one of the reasons the White Paper proposals deal with the kind of customs arrangements and co-operation with our EU partners which will not just prevent friction at the border, but, particularly in relation to just-in-time manufacturers, provide them with the frictionless trade they need.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Can we be absolutely sure that, should this House reject a deal brought back by the Government, we will still leave the European Union on 29 March, and that those who vote against that deal will be responsible for no deal?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend raises, responsibly and assiduously, the stark reality of those who would seek to wreck the deal, as the Labour party leadership has suggested, come what may. Every hon. Member of this House will have a choice to make between the good deal we are confident we will bring back and the alternatives.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the event of no deal the UK Government will not create a hard border on the island of Ireland? And if we do not do it, who does he think will?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is attempting to draw me down an avenue of inquiry I will not be pursuing. What I will say is that we have made it clear that under no circumstances will we see or erect a hard border in relation to Northern Ireland.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
This week the NAO warned that not a single one of the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ preparations for a no-deal Brexit was in anything other than a red-amber state of lack of preparedness. That is on top of the 80,000 lost Scottish jobs, £2,300 out of the pockets of every Scottish household and a 9% hit to our economy that a no-deal Brexit is likely to bring. Is the Secretary of State seriously telling us that it is possible for him and the Prime Minister to bring back a bad deal that is worse than that?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the risks of no deal, but the point is to have the planning and preparations in place to ensure we can avoid or mitigate those risks. In addition to the remarks I made earlier, £8 million of funding for customs intermediaries has been announced. We also need to prepare for the worst-case scenario, whereby the authorities at Calais are deliberately directing a go-slow approach, by supporting a diversion of the flow to more amenable ports in other countries.
Peter Grant
HMRC will not have the capacity to cope and the Border Force will not have the capacity to cope, but at least we know that the Government’s capacity for incompetence is utterly unbounded. The Secretary of State is criticising others for so-called intransigence. Is it not time for the Government to drop their own intransigent stance, go right back to the beginning, rub out the three stupid red lines and start again?
Dominic Raab
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that at this late stage of negotiations, we can go back to the beginning, I am afraid his approach is rather delusional. We have made good progress and we are close to agreeing a deal. The responsible thing for Members from all parts of the House to do, regardless of their views on Brexit, is to get behind the Government so we can clinch that good deal for all quarters and all parts of the UK.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Has the Secretary of State made the Republic of Ireland aware that if the French start mucking about with Calais and a go-slow in the event of no deal, the biggest impact will be not on UK trade but on trade with the Republic of Ireland that passes through this country?
Dominic Raab
I am confident that the authorities in Dublin are well aware of the implications of no deal. All of us, on all sides—not just in this House but in the EU—want to lock horns, close the outstanding issues and seal the good deal that will serve everyone’s interests.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
As you will know, Mr Speaker, Labour’s 2017 general election manifesto was rightly hailed as a transformative blueprint for a Britain that works for the many, not the few, but even we did not go so far as to propose the nationalisation of roll-off, roll-on lorry ferries. In addition to contingency plans for Government-owned or operated logistics, can the Secretary of State tell us which other industries the Government are considering taking into public ownership under a no-deal scenario?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to look at all possible contingencies to ensure that in a no-deal scenario British businesses and livelihoods are safeguarded. I think it was rather unfortunate of him to refer to the Labour manifesto, because with the Labour party’s current commitment to rejecting any deal that the Government bring back opening the door to a second referendum, the Labour leadership have driven a coach and horses straight through the promises that they made to every Labour voter at the last election.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Dominic Raab)
We are negotiating to secure a strong deal that works for the whole United Kingdom, and our White Paper proposals will deliver on that.
Giles Watling
I do not believe in a second referendum, and I have grave doubts about referendums in general. We had the vote, and the people voted to leave. I voted to remain. Now, after all this time and division, what are we going to do to heal the scars left by the referendum?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; a second referendum would create far more uncertainty than it would resolve, and would erode public trust in our democracy. We will heal the divisions created by the campaign and the politics of Brexit by delivering on the outcome of the referendum, and by making sure that we deliver jobs for working families and build homes for the next generation beyond the Brexit negotiations.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Now that we know that the referendum that delivered this entire process was conducted illegally, surely that is another reason to give us all a people’s vote at the end of the process. The Secretary of State can have his Bill endorsed, and we can have the option to remain, because we know what that looks like.
Dominic Raab
I always listen to the hon. Lady, who is thoughtful and passionate in her views. However, I think that a second referendum would create a huge amount of uncertainty, returning us to square one and eroding public trust in the system.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend been able respectfully to persuade our negotiating partners that Northern Ireland is not some enclave of the character of those around the area of the Bodensee, for example, but an integral part of the United Kingdom that is not, in any circumstances, to be split off from our country?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have made the point that we would never accept any proposals that would threaten the integrity of the United Kingdom, whether constitutional or economic. We have also made the point that a lot of the proposals that we have seen would not be acceptable to many on the EU side, given the separatist pressures in places such as Corsica, Catalonia and other parts of Europe.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that Brexit represents a real opportunity to become a global United Kingdom, free to make vital trade deals with countries across the world? Does he feel that increasing the backstop would be unhelpful because it would only hamper our ability to negotiate trade deals and would not help to resolve any outstanding issues?
Dominic Raab
I certainly agree that we must secure the right deal that strikes the right balance between preserving the frictionless trade that we want with our EU partners and taking advantage of the global opportunities of the future, from Latin America to Asia. We have committed ourselves to providing a backstop in case there is a gap between the end of the implementation period and the coming into effect of the future relationship, but we will do nothing to threaten—and will not accept anything that does threaten—the integrity of the United Kingdom.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
Every nation in our Union exports more to the rest of the UK than it does to the EU27, and the UK internal market accounts for 61% of Scotland’s exports. Can the Secretary of State assure me that he will do what makes sense for the Union and for the Scottish economy?
Dominic Raab
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is true that we have a large export relationship with our EU partners, but equally, as the EU itself recognises, the vast majority—the lion’s share—of future growth opportunities will lie with the growth markets of the future, from Latin America to Asia, as I said earlier.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Last Sunday, when the Secretary of State was asked on “The Andrew Marr Show” how long the proposed UK-wide customs backstop might last, he said:
“It could be time-limited, there could be another mechanism.”
Whichever of the two it turns out to be, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the backstop—if needed—would not be terminated before the conclusion of our negotiations on the future partnership? If he is not able to give that assurance, will he tell the House what would replace it to ensure that the border in Northern Ireland remained open?
Dominic Raab
The Chair of the Select Committee is right to say that we need to respect our commitment to provide a bridge between the end of the implementation period and the future relationship. That does need to be something we are not locked into indefinitely, and, of course, the EU side cannot agree anything under article 50—which provides only for the winding down of the EU arrangements—that would allow something to be indefinite, so this ought to be a matter that there is mutual interest in and agreement on resolving.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Dominic Raab)
Our White Paper proposals will ensure that there is frictionless trade at the border, which is in the interests of businesses but will also avoid any potential extra infrastructure at the border in Northern Ireland.
Kevin Brennan
Does the Secretary of State understand why some of us who have Irish heritage are worried by what is said by some Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who said a moment ago that under no circumstances could Northern Ireland be split off from the United Kingdom? He knows full well that the Belfast agreement envisages that prospect if the people of Northern Ireland and the people of Ireland agree to it, and that is Government policy. Will he confirm his commitment to the Belfast agreement, and will he also confirm the Government’s commitment to the agreement made last December with the EU about the future of the border in Northern Ireland?
Dominic Raab
I certainly do understand all the sensitivities on this side. In fairness, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) was referring to the negotiations, and whether we would accept anything relating to them that would have the effect of drawing a line down the Irish sea or threatening the integrity of the UK. But, of course, the Belfast agreement says that nothing should happen in relation to Northern Ireland without the consent of Northern Ireland, and we will not allow the EU to threaten that.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Last week I met a group of young people from Northern Ireland who were members of Our Future Our Choice. They were clearly extremely worried about the border arrangements, and also very worried that they might not retain the right that I have had, and the Secretary of State has had, to live, work and study in the European Union. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give them that they will be able to continue to do that after we have left the EU?
Dominic Raab
I think we can provide that assurance, not just in relation to the progress that we have made in the withdrawal agreement, but as a result of the commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that would guarantee the rights of EU nationals in the event of no deal. For those who are anxious about the uncertainty that lies ahead, the very worst outcome would be a second referendum, which is the policy of the Liberal Democrats, and which would only make that uncertainty worse.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
On Monday, the Prime Minister said that if the UK and the EU were to make a legally binding commitment to a
“temporary UK-EU joint customs territory”,—[Official Report, 22 October 2018; Vol. 648, c. 47.]
the EU’s proposal for a Northern Ireland-specific customs proposal “is no longer needed”. If it is “no longer needed”, does that mean that it will no longer be in the withdrawal agreement, or does the Prime Minister really mean that she thinks it will no longer ever need to come into force?
Dominic Raab
I think the Prime Minister was very clear on that. We will not be able to accept any Northern Ireland-specific arrangement that would leave Northern Ireland in a customs regime that was separate from that of the rest of the United Kingdom. It is as simple as that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Suella Braverman)
After the UK leaves the EU on 29 March 2019 the implementation period will provide a bridge to our future relationship, ensuring that citizens and businesses only have to plan for one set of changes. During the implementation period the UK will no longer be a member state of the EU, nor will it have MEPs at the European Parliament or a judge at the European Court of Justice. We will have the freedom to negotiate, sign and ratify new trade deals with third countries, although they will not come into force until the end of the implementation period.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but clearly the position should be that on day zero we are a full member of the EU and by the end of the transition period we have no connection other than the future arrangements that we have. It seems to me that instead of a curve as we reduce the transition period, all we have is a postponing of the cliff edge and a delayed departure. Will my hon. Friend comment?
Suella Braverman
I take note of my hon. Friend’s comments. The aim of the implementation period is to provide certainty for businesses and individuals with access to each other’s markets on terms similar to those today. There will be a number of changes to reflect the UK’s new status as a third country—those I mentioned before—but crucially we have got new opportunities to start taking steps to enjoy our new freedoms, and that time should be used effectively.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Secretary of State and I meet regularly with ministerial colleagues to discuss a range of EU exit-related matters. As the recently published meeting climate change requirements technical notice made clear, in the unlikely event of no deal the UK Government will initially meet our existing carbon pricing commitments via the tax system, taking effect in 2019.
Alex Cunningham
The carbon tax as outlined would be devastating for companies such as CF Fertilisers in Stockton and energy-intensive industries across the country. Will the level of relief against the proposed carbon tax or any other new arrangement for energy-intensive industries leave exposed industries with no greater financial burden than they have under the EU emissions trading scheme?
Chris Heaton-Harris
That is a very good question for a Treasury Minister. More details will follow at next week’s Budget, with legislation to follow in the upcoming Finance Bill.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Some excellent biotechnology research is going on in universities across the UK, including in my constituency. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that will continue to be the case after 29 March next year?
Chris Heaton-Harris
The Government are committed to ensure that science and new technologies such as the one the hon. Gentleman mentions are able to continue and thrive in a future relationship, deal or no deal.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
The Government remain committed to fully involving the Government of Gibraltar as we leave the EU together. We have been working closely together including through the Joint Ministerial Council for Gibraltar on EU negotiations, which has met seven times since the referendum. In addition, I am in regular contact with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, most recently at the Gibraltar Day celebrations in London this week, when we both welcomed the real progress made in negotiations.
Nigel Huddleston
I warmly welcome the apparent agreement on Gibraltar with our Spanish friends—and I do mean friends, because 10,000 Spaniards work in Gibraltar every day, the UK is Spain’s fifth biggest trading partner, and 18 million Brits went to Spain last year. Will the Minister confirm that it is in the best interests of Spain, Gibraltar and the UK that we have as frictionless a flow of goods, tourists and workers as possible?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: a good deal is in the interests of all sides. Gibraltar is an engine of prosperity for the surrounding area, and a deal that benefits Gibraltar will also benefit the wider region. A well-managed and smoothly operational Gibraltar-Spain border is vital for prosperity. It is important not only for the flow of frontier workers, but, as my hon. Friend says, for the flow of tourists and other visitors, who make a key contribution to Gibraltar’s thriving economy. And our strong relations with Spain are underpinned by deep economic, cultural and people-to-people links, which we want to strengthen moving forward. We look forward to enhanced co-operation, which will benefit Spain, Gibraltar and the UK.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most significant indeed that yesterday the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, in saluting the support the Prime Minister has personally given to the negotiations, observed that for the first time the Prime Minister of Spain has publicly accepted that the inclusion of a protocol to protect the interests of Gibraltar is a done deal if there is a deal and an agreement? Does that not demonstrate how important it is for any friend of Gibraltar that there is a deal and it is carried in this House?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that he has worked assiduously through the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar to protect and promote the interests of Gibraltar. I would like to return the compliment to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who has played a crucial role in these negotiations.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Chris Heaton-Harris)
We continue to have regular conversations with ministerial colleagues across the Government on all aspects of exiting the European Union, including environmental policy. The UK has a long history of environmental protection, and the Government have been clear that they have no intention of weakening our current environmental protections as we leave the European Union.
Karen Lee
I visited one of my local schools a few weeks ago, and the young people there are very worried about plastic use. This Government are unambitiously pledging to eliminate avoidable plastic waste significantly later than the EU target. Does the Minister agree with me and with the children at the Lincoln Carlton Academy that, with climate change posing an immediate threat, Britain’s environmental protections must not be downgraded after we leave the EU?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Yes, and we would not be doing that. In fact, the Prime Minister has announced that a new environment Bill will be introduced in the second Session to build on the vision we have set out in our 25-year environment plan to leave our precious environment in a better state than the one we inherited. It will help us to create richer habitats for wildlife, improve air and water quality and curb the scourge of plastic in the world’s oceans.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will the excellent Minister tell the House who he thinks will be better prepared to look after the United Kingdom’s interests on the environment: this Parliament or EU bureaucrats?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the excellent Back Bencher—my neighbour—for his question. I obviously believe that this Parliament is better placed to do that.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday’s National Audit Office report on the lack of no-deal preparations lists a whole raft of serious issues facing our country in the eventuality of no deal, particularly on environmental standards, where it points to a collapse of our biosecurity standards. What is the Minister’s response to this, given that the Secretary of State said a moment ago that he was looking at all scenarios? Frankly, that is not good enough, so what will he and his Department do to ensure that we are adequately prepared?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me, but I just do not read the NAO report in the same way that she does. We are obviously preparing for a no deal. We have regular meetings to ensure that we will hit all our targets, and I am confident that we will do so.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Dominic Raab)
We have agreed to protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU under the withdrawal agreement. Our message to EU nationals is that we value the contribution that you make and we want you to stay.
Julian Knight
My question has been prompted by a particular case at my surgery involving a German couple who have been here for many years and contributed hugely to my town of Solihull. They have been concerned by scare stories and by EU intransigence on this issue, and they would like me to ask the Secretary of State whether he can clearly confirm that, after Brexit, EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU will be able to continue to live their lives as they do today.
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Of course, under the withdrawal agreement, we have set out very clearly the rights that people would have in order to give effect to the assurance that he is seeking. They include the right to stay in this country; the right to work; protection for those working as frontier workers; the right for close family members to join them; the recognition of EEA professional qualifications; and a role for the independent monitoring authority in relation to the application of the citizens’ rights element of the agreement, which would mirror what the Commission will do for UK citizens on the continent.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister seriously believe that the Home Office will be able to cope with the number of applications from EU citizens, when its existing immigration systems are in overload?
Dominic Raab
I have had a number of conversations with the Home Secretary and indeed with the Cabinet to ensure that not only the legislation but the operational systems will be in place.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
A technical notice on EU citizens in the UK was expected as part of the no-deal preparations. That was confirmed in a recent technical notice from the Department for Transport, but it has not yet been produced and the Prime Minister’s spokesman apparently told journalists on Tuesday that there were no more notices in the pipeline. Will the Secretary of State clarify which is correct? If there is to be a notice, will he tell us when it will be published?
Dominic Raab
Most hon. Members would agree that citizens’ rights are an issue of scale, importance and sensitivity, which means that it will be dealt with not in technical notices, but in a different format. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that all the details will be coming along shortly to provide the assurances that I think both sides of the House want to give to EU nationals here. We value their contribution and want them to stay.
Paul Blomfield
Both sides of the House certainly do want those assurances, but I am unsure whether that answer provides them, so let me try with another issue. The Prime Minister said that, in the event of no deal, she will make a unilateral offer to EU citizens remaining in the UK, but the right to remain in itself does not provide the reassurance that they need. Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that, in those circumstances, their rights will be identical in every respect to the provisions in the withdrawal agreement as currently drafted?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is right that the Prime Minister made that commitment after the Salzburg summit. We are going to set out all the details in due course, but I can give him some reassurance right now, because the healthcare Bill, which is due to be introduced shortly, will provide reassurance, for example, in the context of reciprocal healthcare for UK nationals who live in, work in or visit the EU, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait just a bit longer for all the details.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Dominic Raab)
I have regular discussions in Cabinet, led by the Prime Minister, on all aspects of our future economic partnership with the EU, which of course includes the customs arrangements.
Nick Smith
How is the Secretary of State going to persuade the hardliners on the Conservative Benches behind him about the benefits of a customs union for jobs and for defending the United Kingdom?
Dominic Raab
We made a clear commitment that we will be leaving the customs union, so I do not think it is a question in the way the hon. Gentleman has described. Our White Paper proposals are designed to secure frictionless trade at the border, which is important for all businesses, particularly the UK’s just-in-time manufacturers.
Ian Murray
Will the Secretary of State tell us what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland about the incompatible arguments that the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland can have different customs and trading arrangements but have no border, but Scotland and England would require a border if Scotland were independent? Is the Brexit that the Government are pursuing not just giving more succour to the nationalists?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. I have regular discussions with all my Cabinet colleagues, and we are clear that we will not allow any proposals to be accepted by the EU that would threaten the territorial, constitutional or economic integrity of the United Kingdom, and that means the whole of the United Kingdom.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Dominic Raab
We have regular discussions with our EU counterparts about all aspects of the relationship, and we are making good progress. Of course, I cannot give the full details or provide the reassurance that my hon. Friend and others would want until we have the full deal, because there is no deal until we have the whole deal.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The withdrawal agreement makes provision to bind us into paying an exit payment of £39 billion. What provisions are there to ensure that the future trade agreement, which will only be in the form of a political statement, will actually get delivered and that we will not find ourselves paying the £39 billion without locking in the future trade arrangements in return?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that he and other hon. Members are concerned about that. We need a package in place that not only deals with the separation issues and the money in the way that he described, but has a clear path and a clear commitment to put the future relationship into effect.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been reported that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit and chaos at the Channel ports, the Government will need to charter additional vessels to bring in food and medicine. What is the assessment of cost for both the Government and industry? What capacity is there in alternative ports to do that?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Of course, any blockage at the border ought to be addressed with pragmatism on both sides to alleviate it, but we must ensure that we are in a position, regardless of what the EU, the French or any other EU member state does, to weather any short-term disruption. We will ensure not only that we have the money and investment in place, but that we are co-operating with businesses and port authorities not just in the UK, but in Belgium, the Netherlands and other parts of the EU.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Suella Braverman)
We continue to work closely with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on support for fishermen after we leave the European Union. The Fisheries Bill, introduced today, will allow us, for the first time since 1973, to take back control of our waters, set our own fisheries rules and exclusively determine who fishes what in our seas as an independent coastal state. That will ensure a sustainable and profitable fishing industry that will regenerate coastal communities and support future generations of UK fishermen.
Sir David Amess
Sea fishermen and cocklers are greatly looking forward to our leaving the European Union at 11 o’clock on 29 March 2019, but will my hon. Friend reassure them that their expected increase in living standards will not be damaged by any extension to the transition period?
Suella Braverman
I fully recognise the importance to fishing communities in Leigh-on-Sea of leaving the common fisheries policy, and my hon. Friend is a strong voice for those communities. We fully expect to negotiate as an independent coastal state in 2020 and, as the Prime Minister set out earlier this week, the interests of UK fishermen are at the forefront of our thinking as we consider the different options that have been proposed. What is clear is that, when EU rules no longer apply, the UK will be making its own decisions. We will control access to our own waters and we will seek to gain a fairer share of quotas.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and with the Scottish Government about replacing the European maritime and fisheries fund and devolving the equivalent budgets?
Suella Braverman
All European maritime and fisheries fund projects approved before the UK leaves the EU will be fully funded under the Treasury guarantee, even when those projects are not completed by the UK exit date. Work is under way to consider the long-term future of all the programmes that are currently EU funded. Leaving the EU means that we will want to take our own decisions about how to deliver the policy objectives previously supported by EU funding.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
With the Fisheries Bill being presented later this morning, and with the Lowestoft fishing industry coming forward with exciting plans to regenerate the industry, will the Minister reconfirm that in December 2020 the UK will negotiate fishing opportunities for 2021 as an independent coastal state?
Suella Braverman
As I said, we fully expect to be negotiating as an independent coastal state in 2020. Any of the options put forward will take account of all that has been agreed in the draft withdrawal agreement. We have clarified that the UK share of quotas will not change during the implementation period and that the UK can attend international negotiations. I am sure my hon. Friend is aware of the structures that have been agreed to ensure that the UK has a representative voice in those negotiations.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
We recognise the importance of a pro-business agenda for Brexit, and we have engaged across the economy on getting a deal that works for business. That includes seeking frictionless trade with EU markets and an implementation period, allowing businesses time to prepare and ensuring only one set of changes.
Justin Madders
Businesses in my constituency are reporting having to pay six-figure sums for Brexit contingency planning. How much of that will they be able to claim back from Government?
Mr Walker
It is vital that both the Government and businesses work together on contingency planning, which is why the Government have published the 106 technical notices. We will continue to work closely with businesses to ensure that they can bring their contingency plans up to form. We will also continue to work on a deal that means those contingency plans do not have to be put into force.
Grahame Morris
Will the Minister elaborate on an earlier answer? The continued success of Nissan is really important to my region. What specific action is he taking to support the manufacturing businesses that operate in the supply chain that supports the Nissan car factory?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about the huge importance of our automotive sector. We continue to engage with the automotive sector, both with the big companies and organisations such as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and with the supply chain to ensure that we are taking their views on board. Securing frictionless access to the European market is so important to protecting those supply chains, which of course exist both in the UK and in Europe.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The port of Immingham in my constituency, measured by tonnage, is the largest in the UK. When I meet businesses on the port, they constantly tell me about the opportunities they foresee for Brexit to extend trade through the port. Will the Minister, and the Government as a whole, support them by talking more about the opportunities of Brexit, rather than talking down those opportunities as the Opposition do?
Mr Speaker
In the spirit of helpfulness to new Members, may I gently say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), whom I know wished to come in on the previous question, that with modest guile it would be perfectly possible for him legitimately to shoehorn his inquiry into the current question?
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As has been said, the Fisheries Bill is to be introduced today. So does my hon. Friend find it as strange as I do that the Scottish National party is leading a delegation to Brussels today to advocate not only staying in the single market and customs union, but, presumably, the common fisheries policy, as well as all the other institutions of the EU in which it is the SNP’s policy to remain? Can she confirm that it is this Government’s position to stay in none of those institutions?
Mr Speaker
It is now a he, rather than a she, but the thrust of the inquiry stands.
Mr Walker
We are grateful, Mr Speaker. I can absolutely confirm that it is our Government’s position to leave the CFP. Having met the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the Scottish Seafood Association to discuss these issues, I think they would be as shocked at the SNP’s position on this as my hon. Friend is.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Suella Braverman)
After sustained public debate, a clear majority of the electorate voted to leave the EU in June 2016, with the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history. We must respect both the will of the British people and the democratic process that delivered that result. As such, it is a matter of Government policy that there will not be a second referendum on our exit from the EU.
John Lamont
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. As someone who voted remain in that referendum, I was naturally disappointed by the result. But I am also a democrat, and it is important that we all respect the results of all elections, regardless of whether we win or lose them. Putting aside the questions on the so-called “people’s vote” and what it would actually achieve and deliver, does she not agree that it would undermine fundamental principles of democracy in this country?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend makes his point skilfully. People trusted that their voices would be heard, and to ask the question all over again would be a betrayal of our democracy and of that trust. Whether on Brexit or on Scottish independence, politicians north and south of the border should think twice before they choose to let people down in this way.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
When are this Government going to wake up to the madness of where we are? There is no deal I can see coming from Europe that will look after my constituents better than remaining in the EU. Whether it is through reasserting parliamentary sovereignty or having a second referendum —yes, I was out on the march in Parliament Square on Saturday—can we please have a Government who wake up to their responsibilities and look after the future of this nation?
Suella Braverman
Looking after the future of this nation means respecting the democratic voice of this nation. Yes, 700,000 people marched on Saturday, but 17.4 million people voted to leave, and we do not simply ignore their voices just because we do not like what they said. I ask the hon. Gentleman, who obviously supports a second referendum and, worse still, one that would have remain as an option, to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask himself whether he can truly call himself a democrat.
Mr Speaker
I should say to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that I was speaking at a theatre in Colchester last night and I referenced him in the course of my remarks. Knowing that he is not altogether averse to a focus upon himself from time to time, I think he would have enjoyed my observations.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that, if the 2016 referendum is not honoured, a second referendum would have no credibility whatsoever?
Suella Braverman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is not the best of three. It is not about, “You keep trying until you get the result you want.” This was a historic vote, when millions of people put their faith in democracy. To do anything other than revere that vote would undermine democracy and cause a collapse in that faith.
Mr Speaker
I am relieved to see that the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who is a most assiduous attender in the Chamber, has beetled into the Chamber just in time. This is very good news.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Chris Heaton-Harris)
We are committed to negotiating a successful exit and, as a responsible Government, we are also preparing for the unlikely scenario in which we leave without a deal, including by co-operating with member states to minimise disruption to citizens and businesses. We will continue to impress on member states our joint responsibility to work together.
Rachel Maclean
Thank you for your patience, Mr Speaker.
Although we do not expect a no-deal scenario, which is clearly not in the interests of anyone, does the Minister agree that it is completely incumbent on EU member states to work with the UK, because it is in their own interests to get a good deal as well?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Member states are playing a key role in ensuring the successful delivery of our exit and in negotiations. We hope to work with them fully in future.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Have the discussions with the Republic of Ireland Government about the possibility of our leaving with no deal next March identified that they would have a clear obligation, enforceable quite quickly through the European Court of Justice, to impose customs and other checks on trade across the border with Northern Ireland?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the Irish Government have said that they would not do that.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
In the event of no deal, the EU’s free trade agreements will cease to apply to the UK. How many of those 37 free trade agreements have the Government successfully agreed with our partners to retain and carry over in the event of no deal?
Chris Heaton-Harris
We are currently in negotiations with all those individual partners so that we can do exactly that.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State holds detailed discussions with the devolved Administrations on the negotiations, through monthly meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations). I co-chair the Ministerial Forum (EU Negotiations), which met most recently on Monday. We had a productive discussion on co-operative accords, including on science, education and culture.
Ronnie Cowan
Has the Secretary of State read the Scottish Government’s most recent publication, “Scotland’s Place in Europe: Our Way Forward”? Will he pledge to consider the recommendation in the report that staying in the single market and customs union would be best for jobs and the economy?
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Yesterday, the Russian Federation formally objected to the post-Brexit schedule proposed by the UK at the World Trade Organisation. Unless the Russian veto is removed, if there is no deal, Welsh companies will not be able to trade on WTO terms. What discussions has the Minister had with the Welsh Government about this catastrophic likely outcome for the Welsh economy?
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The Minister knows that I am the vice-chair of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, of which he is a much-missed member. The assembly recently visited the Scottish Parliament, where we were shown the recent report. I have recently been to Wales and BIPA has just had its conference in London. The Minister greatly respects the United Kingdom and its constituent parts, but may I pick up on what the Secretary of State said? It is not good enough to keep on talking to Cabinet colleagues; Brexit is undermining the integrity of the Union. How often has the Secretary of State visited the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland to talk to the people there about how they really feel about the strain in our constitution?
Mr Walker
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her important work with BIPA, of which I was a keen member as a Back Bencher. We take the Union very seriously. The Secretary of State regularly meets representatives of the two devolved Governments and the Northern Ireland civil service at the Joint Ministerial Committee. Although he is relatively new in his role, I am sure that he will visit all four parts of the United Kingdom during the course of his duties.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
We are running slightly late, but I want to accommodate the last two questioners.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Suella Braverman)
We are continuing to put in place the legislative building blocks to deliver our exit, whatever the outcome of the negotiations, including the unlikely event that a deal cannot be agreed. The Government have stated consistently that a wide range of legislation will be required to correct retained EU law and ensure a functioning statute book on exit day. Examples include the recent Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018, which is now law, and statutory instruments on civil aviation and airports.
Afzal Khan
Greater Manchester has started to draw up plans for the catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit. Council leaders have warned that supermarkets in the north-west do not have warehouse space to stockpile food. Planes from Manchester airport could be grounded. Councils have already faced eight years of austerity, and they will be the ones picking up the pieces after no deal, providing housing and children-and-adult services to people who are out of work because of economic downturn. Will the Minister commit to sharing the Government’s no-deal planning with local authorities?
Suella Braverman
The Government take very seriously the concerns of local authorities when it comes to Brexit preparations. I have met local government leaders all over the country to talk about the subject. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has set up a Brexit delivery board to co-ordinate the work of local authorities and Government on preparations for Brexit—deal or no deal.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We firmly believe that it is in the interests of both the EU and the UK to strike a deal, but it is the job of a responsible Government to prepare for all scenarios. The UK aerospace industry is a high-growth, high-value sector driven by innovation. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working with the sector to ensure that the UK continues to be one of the most competitive locations in the world for aerospace.
Jeremy Lefroy
I thank the Minister for that answer. No deal would be extremely serious and damaging for aerospace both in the EU and the UK, so it is vital that we avoid that. In terms of cash flow, I ask him, even if there is a deal, to look very seriously at ensuring that cash flow is available for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises that are likely to be impacted even by small disruption to their business.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my hon. Friend for his supplementary question. Although there are programmes already in place, including the Sharing in Growth performance improvement programme, I will happily take away the point that he has made and perhaps have a conversation with him about it later.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Dominic Raab)
Since I last updated the House, our negotiations with the EU have continued and the withdrawal agreement is now 95% agreed. There is one key outstanding issue, namely the Northern Ireland border. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister set out the proposals that we are discussing with the EU and, as we intensify our negotiations to secure a good deal, we are also expediting preparations for no deal just in case the EU does not match the ambition and the pragmatism that we have demonstrated.
Marsha De Cordova
It is clear that no deal would be a national disaster and the thousands of EU citizens living in Battersea fear that a no-deal Brexit risks causing personal disaster and their rights to be jeopardised. Groups such as the 3 million have called for the citizens’ rights section of the withdrawal agreement to be ring-fenced so that there is no change to their rights in the event of a no deal. Why will the Secretary of State not make that commitment?
Dominic Raab
The Prime Minister and I have made the commitment to secure the rights of EU nationals here. We will set out the details very shortly, and we do expect the EU to reciprocate in relation to UK expats abroad.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Dominic Raab
It is a deeply irresponsible approach. I have to say that it is one that the Labour leadership have taken, but it is one that all Members on all sides might have to think about very carefully when we bring back a good deal from the EU.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has now published 106 technical notices relating to no deal. The analysis by the Institute for Government shows that, taken together, his own technical notices commit the Government before next March to the creation or expansion of 15 quangos, further legislation in 51 areas, the negotiation of 40 new international agreements either with the EU or other countries, and the introduction of 55 new systems and processes. That is a huge legislative task for any Government, let alone this troubled Government. That is his own analysis. On a scale of one to 10, can the Secretary of State indicate how confident he is that this can all be done in the next 22 weeks?
Dominic Raab
I thank the shadow Brexit Secretary. What he has set out, of course, is the concerted plans and preparations that we are rightly undertaking to make sure that, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations—and we want a good deal—we will be ready to deal with the short-term risk, which there will undoubtedly be, and make a success of Brexit.
Keir Starmer
I notice that I did not get a number between one and 10, and I notice, therefore, that the Secretary of State is not adopting the blind confidence in the face of the fact that his predecessor went in for. The truth is that it is already too late to plan for no deal. This is bluff not planning. May I ask a very simple question? Why was this legislation not introduced months ago?
Dominic Raab
There has actually been a variety of legislation, including the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which is now in place. The irresponsible thing to do is take the position of the shadow Chancellor, who has said that he would make no financial provision for no deal. That is deeply irresponsible, as it would leave us as a hostage to the negotiations and leave the UK overexposed in the unlikely and regrettable outcome that we do not get a deal with our EU partners.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
Studying abroad is a great opportunity for many students and we want to ensure that it continues. We have proposed a UK-EU co-operative accord on culture and education for after we leave, allowing British and EU students to continue to visit one another’s countries, and study in one another’s colleges and universities.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Will the Government ensure that our contingency plans reflect what we know of our European partners’ contingency plans?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on no deal when he was the Minister, and the preparations that have been in place for more than two years. As he will know from his experience in the Department, we closely monitor what our European counterparts are saying. If he were to listen to our French counterparts at this point in time, he would be hearing noises about two-minute checks at the border, not longer. France is employing lots of customs guards to ensure the flow of goods and trade, and will increase the number of border posts at Calais.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
Through our White Paper proposals, we are absolutely committed not just to secure and build on our brilliant trading relationship with the EU, but to take advantage of the growth opportunities globally. We are also committed—not just through the EU withdrawal Act, but through the legislation that will be coming forward—to ensuring that we leave the country in an environmentally stronger position for the next generation.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
If anyone were to cut up rough at the borders, what is the significance of our being a signatory to the World Trade Organisation trade facilitation agreement?
Dominic Raab
The WTO rules provide some legal checks in relation to discrimination and other aspects, but the reality is that there would be disruption at the border. We can mitigate to a large degree, but not wholly; that will depend on the response from our EU partners and friends. The French, the Belgians and the Dutch are co-operating with us constructively with regard to Eurotunnel. My hon. Friend will have heard what the Minister for no deal planning said about the French approach. We are confident that there would be a constructive approach on both sides in the case of a no-deal scenario, but we do need to prepare for all eventualities.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Mr Robin Walker
It has always been the case in these negotiations that we have to agree the whole deal in order for it to apply. It is right to say that we have made a great deal of progress on that protocol, but it is linked to the overall withdrawal agreement.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Witnesses to the Select Committee on Justice on Tuesday stressed the importance of ongoing contractual continuity and certainty of enforcement. That is especially important to the financial services sector, where many of my constituents work. Will the Minister meet me to discuss progress on a number of the important technical aspects around this issue?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will remember that I answered questions on this topic before his Committee when I was a Justice Minister. These are key aspects of the future relationship, and aspects that we continue to negotiate. We will continue to engage with him and his Committee to ensure that we get the right approach.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
Any pay-offs to MEPs are obviously a matter for the EU rather than the UK. In relation to young people, we need to be very clear on the benefits of Brexit, both in relation to trade and to the global horizons that will be the USP of this country. In relation to the mobility provisions that allow them to keep studying, travelling and taking advantage of the rich cultural and educational opportunities on the continent, we will engage with all sectors and all stakeholders.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Yesterday, at our evidence session in the Exiting the EU Committee, representatives of Northern Irish businesses made it quite clear that no deal would be really damaging for them and for the people of Northern Ireland. Does that not therefore make it absolutely imperative that the whole question of the Northern Ireland backstop is resolved, and resolved quickly?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is always a very constructive commentator on these issues, and I welcomed my time serving with him on the Brexit Committee. He makes a very important point. We want to see a sensible approach to the bridge between intellectual property and the future relationship; the de-politicisation, frankly, of this issue; and making sure, which is in both sides’ interests, that we resolve this issue and get the deal done, which is good news for both sides, and particularly for Northern Ireland.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Chris Heaton-Harris
Stockpiling is a part of what the NHS and businesses do already. We will be leaving the European Union successfully on 29 March next year, and we will be getting a deal.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The UK has the world’s third-largest aviation industry, yet there are no WTO defaults in the event of no deal. What discussions are taking place to help the aviation industry to plan for all Brexit scenarios?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Suella Braverman)
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. He will have seen, no doubt, the technical notices that have been issued relating to the aviation sector, which set out very clearly that we would seek to strike the relevant bilateral agreements to ensure that aviation companies and aeroplanes have access to each other’s airspace.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
We hear a lot of fighting talk from the Front Bench, but what attempt are the Government making to heal the terrible divisions that still scar our country, and what attempt are they making to listen to the concerns of remain voters such as mine in Bristol West?
Dominic Raab
It has nothing to do with fighting talk; it is to do with the professionalism and the smart approach we are taking to the negotiations, both on the substance and the detail of our proposals. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) is laughing, but Labour has come up with no serious alternative on the substance. We will continue to make sure that we get the best deal for the country, because that would provide the unifying effect and the healing of the divisions that the hon. Lady refers to.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
When I came back from Berlin during the October holidays, I went through the blue lane rather than the red lane or the green lane at customs. What lane will I use on 30 March next year, on 30 March 2020, and on 30 March 2021?
Mr Speaker
I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) is now clear about his domestic arrangements for the future. No doubt we will get an update in due course.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Bed manufacturing contributes over £330 million to the UK economy, employing 7,000 people in over 155 companies. In Batley and Spen alone, there are 35 bed manufacturers employing over 1,000 staff. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with bed manufacturers to protect them from a no-deal Brexit?
Dominic Raab
We engage with all sectors and businesses of all kinds, both through the business advisory group, which I have gone and presented to, and the CBI’s business committee. We want to make sure that manufacturers like those in the hon. Lady’s constituency are protected in a no-deal scenario in relation to their EU trade links, but also their global ones. The best thing she can do is to get behind the Government so that we get the best deal for them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
There are two colleagues bobbing who have not had a question so far. I call Martin Whitfield.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I am grateful, Mr Speaker.
On this sitting day in 1971, by 356 votes to 244, this House voted to join the EEC. Could the Secretary of State give us the benefits of that decision?
Dominic Raab
I am not quite sure of the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to raise, but I gently suggest to him that life has moved on a little bit since the 1970s, although some on the Labour Front Bench are a bit slow in catching up. We had a referendum in 2016. The British people voted to leave and we are going to get the best deal for them.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
This morning, a family-owned business in my constituency, FreestyleXtreme, announced that it is moving some of its jobs to Bucharest because of uncertainty about Brexit, and particularly the fact that it might be hit by tariffs after exit day. It warned me several months ago that that move would have to be on the cards. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give to small companies? I can see further businesses taking the same option if they do not get more clarity.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady is right to point to the uncertainty at this moment in time. The best way of alleviating that is for us to get a good deal. The economy is doing well. Youth unemployment is half the level it was in 2010. Wages are rising at the highest level since the financial crash. In terms of businesses voting with confidence in the UK economy, Rolls-Royce, Unilever and Amazon recently announced fresh investment in this country, and that is the reason we should go into these negotiations with economic self-confidence.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I am sorry, but we must now move on.
Before we hear the urgent question, I wish to make a short statement about the recording of names in the Division list printed in Hansard relating to new clause 7, in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill.
I am sorry to report that there are a large number of errors in that list. Those appear to have been caused by a technological failure. The numbers recorded as voting on either side of the Division are recorded by the Tellers. Those numbers—I hope the House is following me—are correct. Moreover, the names recorded on the Commons voting app—with which all present, I feel sure, will be closely familiar—are also correct. Urgent steps are now being taken to correct the record, and the Clerk Assistant is investigating what went wrong, with a view to taking necessary corrective action. He has asked me to pass on his apology to Members concerned. I cannot identify them individually—that would be a most burdensome and lengthy task—but I hope that they will take this as an apology to all. A revised, corrected list will be printed. I hope that that satisfies the House for now.
Mr Speaker
I am always grateful for the assistance proffered from a sedentary position by the hon. Gentleman.
Nuclear Treaty: US Withdrawal
(5 years, 12 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
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the planned US withdrawal from the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty and its implications for UK and European security.
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to put up with the Minister of State this morning.
If I may, I will first set out some of the context. The intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty is an agreement signed 31 years ago, in 1987, between the United States and the Soviet Union. The treaty eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges. For over three decades, the INF treaty has played a valuable role in supporting Euro-Atlantic security. By removing an entire class of US and Russian weapons, the treaty has contributed to strategic stability and reduced the risk of miscalculation leading to conflict.
Russia’s aggressive actions, including the threat and use of force to attain political goals, continue to undermine Euro-Atlantic security and the rules-based international order. Full compliance is essential for the treaty to be effective, yet a pattern of behaviour and information over many years has led to widespread doubts about Russia’s compliance. Of course, it was the Obama Administration in 2014 that first strongly called out Russia’s non-compliance with this treaty. It is important to remember that this has been a long-running concern for several US Administrations and, indeed, for their European allies.
Alongside NATO allies in July, we made clear that in the absence of any credible answer from Russia on the 9M729 missile, the most plausible assessment would be that Russia was now in violation of the INF treaty. Since then, we have received no credible answer and so judge that Russia is indeed in violation.
In the interests of preserving the treaty, to which we in the UK and I think all our allies in Europe remain fully committed, we urge Russia to address these concerns in a substantial and transparent way, and to come back into full compliance with the treaty. The situation in which only one side—the United States—adheres to the treaty and Russia remains in non-compliance is not sustainable, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree.
It is important to recognise that the US has not yet withdrawn from this treaty. While the treaty remains in force, we shall continue to support it, and in particular to press Russia to return to full and verifiable compliance. Indeed, it is worth noting media reports that Presidents Trump and Putin plan to meet in France next month—on Remembrance Sunday—to discuss this further. May I reassure the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the House at large, that dialogue is ongoing and that we shall remain in close contact with our US and NATO allies?
Fabian Hamilton
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the Minister for a very helpful reply.
As the Minister said, last week President Trump announced that the United States intends to leave the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty, which was signed by the US and Soviet Russia in 1987. At that time, the threat of nuclear war brought the two great powers together at the negotiation table. The result of those negotiations was the elimination of all short and intermediate-range nuclear missiles, many of which were placed in Europe. Worryingly, however, nuclear war seems more tangible and real today than at any time since Reagan and Gorbachev signed the INF. Yet instead of realising this very real threat and its implications for global peace and security, the United States has apparently decided unilaterally to pull out, offering no alternative proposal or replacement. That is why I very much welcome the Minister’s comments.
What we are seeing at the moment is the erosion of the rules-based international order that underpins global peace and security. I must point out that the US was at the forefront of painstakingly creating such a system over the past 70 years. Leaving the INF is a dangerous unravelling of part of the architecture of trust and understanding that has prevented nuclear conflict. That system began exactly 50 years ago with the signing of the non-proliferation treaty, and certainly Labour Members—and, I am sure, those on both sides of the House—strongly support it.
Many experts have concluded that we are now entering a new arms race that has the potential to be more unpredictable and dangerous than at any time during the cold war. Have the UK Government consulted the United States on the implications that an arms race might have for European and United Kingdom security? I ask because this has deep implications for European security. In 1987, Europe was at the epicentre of the cold war and the arms race between Russia and America. Today, events in places such as Ukraine, and even here at home in Salisbury, have shown that Europe is at the forefront of a new conflict between east and west.
Withdrawal from the INF brings back the spectre of Pershing missiles being stationed in Europe and here in the United Kingdom, which I remember vividly from the 1980s. If such a nuclear conflict was to happen between the two major nuclear powers, the UK and our European allies would probably be the first to be hit. Finally, have the Government been given assurances by the United States Administration that we will not see a return of the deployment of short and intermediate-range missiles in Europe?
Mark Field
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I know that he and I agree—I hope the whole House would agree—that there is a great worry that there seems to be an erosion of the international rules-based order on which we have relied since the second world war. I think that we all recognise that that order perhaps needs to evolve and adapt to the world we are living in, and we need to engage with as many partners as possible to ensure that that comes to pass.
We have long-standing concerns about Russia’s development of a range of new capabilities that stand ready to undermine strategic stability. The US is a responsible nuclear power, with which we work closely. I have twice been to the UN Security Council in the past year for the debates that have taken place on non-proliferation. Interestingly, those debates were held at the behest of Kazakhstan and other nations that one would not necessarily think of as being immediately concerned about such matters. It is very much the policy to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. We shall continue to work with all partners across the international community to prevent proliferation and to make progress on multilateral nuclear disarmament.
I wish to touch on one other matter that the hon. Gentleman did not mention but is worth commenting on. As he is aware, there is also the bilateral new strategic arms reduction treaty. It was signed in 2011 by the US and Russia, and is designed to expire, under a 10-year process, in 2021. We are very pleased that both sides met limits by the deadline earlier this year, and we welcome the continued implementation of that treaty, which has an important impact on the broader proliferation of nuclear and other weaponry. New START contributes to international stability, and allies have expressed strong support for its continued implementation, and for early and active dialogue on ways to improve strategic stability.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
This week marks the anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis, when the world came to the brink of nuclear war. Clearly the most important issue is that both sides have to come to compliance. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Russia needs to come to compliance with its obligations under the treaty to make the world safe?
Mark Field
My hon. Friend was alive during the time of the Cuban missile crisis, unlike one or two of us on the Government Benches—and elsewhere I am sure, but I would not wish to be too glib about it.
We absolutely recognise the seriousness of the challenge that lies ahead. Tackling INF is essential for the security of the US and Europe, but we need to ensure that all sides that sign up to such agreements continue to implement them fully. That is where we are at the moment—working with all our allies to get Russia back to the negotiating table and keeping to its obligations.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I was definitely not alive at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, but I have been to eastern Ukraine, and two miles from the contact line with its occupied part, so I am under no illusion about the threat from Russian aggression. The Minister knows that Scottish National party Members have supported the Government on that when required. However, if we believe in the integrity of this vital treaty—the shadow Minister was right to adumbrate its importance—it cannot be the case that we can bring Russia into compliance at the same time as the United States is threatening to depart from it. It therefore follows that we cannot be cheerleaders for the US departing from the treaty. There were somewhat mixed messages—the Minister has partly cleared things up this morning—coming from the Defence Secretary in New York at the tail end of last week, when he stated that we would be with the United States should it choose to leave the INF treaty. I hope the Minister will confirm that the British Government should not take such a position. I would hope that Britain will knock heads together. He will have our support if he chooses to do that, because if the integrity of the treaty is unravelled by President Trump—I am mindful that this is all during an election campaign—we will all be the worse off for it.
Mark Field
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his wise comments. It is important to recognise that the US has not yet withdrawn from the treaty, and clearly we are in discussions with all our allies to avoid that outcome, but it is equally important that Russia returns to full and verifiable compliance. It is also worth reflecting, as I did in my comments about New START, on the fact that there are other treaties around. I accept that this issue very much focuses the minds of all of us on the European continent, but other treaties are still being adhered to, and that is a positive starting point in trying to bring both sides together.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
It is my understanding that it would take six months to withdraw from the treaty under the formal process. Is it effectively the case that we now have a crucial six-month period in which to make some progress in reaching an agreement between Russia, America and ourselves?
Mark Field
I reassure my hon. Friend that we engage routinely with the US on a wide range of foreign policy and security issues, and similarly, this week US officials in Moscow will be talking about a range of issues. There is a timeframe, as my hon. Friend rightly points out. We very much want to adhere to the treaty while it is in place, and in our view it is Russia’s responsibility to come to the table and ensure the proper implementation of its obligations.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
President Trump’s decision to withdraw unilaterally from hard-won international agreements, including the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear deal, is cause for concern. I agree with the Minister that states need to honour the commitments they have entered into, but does he agree that it sends a damaging message about the need for international agreements to solve the problems of the world when the United States of America can no longer be relied on to uphold agreements that it freely entered into?
Mark Field
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government also have concerns about the Paris climate change agreement, and we think it greatly to be regretted that the US decided to withdraw from it. I reiterate that it is important to recognise that the US has not yet withdrawn from this treaty, and it is the work of allies—particularly here on the European continent, and not least the big three of the United Kingdom, Germany and France—to try to exert as much pressure as possible in that regard. The easiest way to resolve this matter is to ensure that the bilateral arrangement that has been in place for 31 years is adhered to by one of the parties that is not doing so. In a way, this is frustration boiling over, and as I have pointed out, this is not something new to the Trump Administration; this high-profile issue goes back almost half a decade, including during the Obama Administration.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I am sure that the Minister agrees that none of us wants a return to the era of thousands of short and intermediate-range nuclear warhead missile delivery systems in Europe that could potentially be used at a moment’s notice to start a world war. Does he agree that when Russia has developed a new missile system that is potentially in breach of this treaty, we must be clear that that treaty will not survive if one party ignores its obligations?
Mark Field
My hon. Friend is right and there are very deep-seated concerns, not only for the US but for all allies about Russia’s development of new missile systems. Those long-standing concerns are shared by all NATO allies, not least those close to the Russian border. Along with NATO allies, and supported by US efforts, we worked to bring Russia back into compliance as recently as the NATO summit last July.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
One disturbing thing that President Trump added to this conversation was when he said that he is not convinced by the treaty because it does not include China, which is increasing its arsenal. Does that suggest that something in the mind of the President of the United States of America would quite like an escalation of nuclear weaponry? That is something to be abhorred by us all, is it not?
Mark Field
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is, in part, in the realms of speculation. As Members will know, Russia and the US alone are the countries bound by the treaty, although it obviously impacts on many other countries across the world, especially in Europe. We are engaging, and will continue to engage, with the United States Administration to understand their assessment, although obviously, I, too, have read some of the speculation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Fundamentally, this treaty concerns Euro-Atlantic security and can be effective only if there is full compliance.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm what specific engagement there has been with representatives from the US Administration and Russian authorities on these matters?
Mark Field
I hope my hon. Friend will recognise that I do not want to get into too many matters of sensitive intelligence regarding verification and other issues. Clearly, lines of communications are open, and not just with the US. One benefit, however frustrating, of the bilateral relationship between the UK and Russia is that we are members of the UN Security Council, and there are opportunities to engage on a regular basis. My hon. Friend should be assured that we will continue to do so.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
There is a continuing undermining of the international order by many nations across the world, including Russia and China. How will the UK Government ensure that upholders of the international order—NATO, the UN, the USA, Britain and Europe—make the case that the person who is also undermining that international order, President Trump, must show an example, or else we cannot make that argument to other countries?
Mark Field
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from on this matter. He wants to criticise the US Administration, but the truth of the matter is that there has been frustration on this issue for over half a decade. We are working closely, and do work closely, with the US to try to ensure nuclear non-proliferation. I agree that it is a matter of great concern that we are living in a world where there are continued threats, from a number of unexpected quarters, towards a rules-based international system that has stood the world in very good stead over the past seven decades. I spend a lot of time in the Foreign Office on this matter. I know that the new Foreign Secretary feels just as strongly about it and will want to speak very openly about the rules-based system.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who spoke from the Labour Front Bench, for tabling an urgent question on this matter and you, Mr Speaker, for accepting it? Does the Minister share my concern, however, that in the Labour Front Bencher’s comments there was not a breath that was critical of Russia for not complying with the treaty? Does he agree that there is no point in having international treaties unless both signatories adhere to their terms?
Mark Field
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which he asks in his usual robust style. In fairness, I think that the Labour Front Bencher was slightly more even-handed in his approach to the matter than he gives him credit for. It is, however, worth reiterating my hon. Friend’s point that ultimately we would not have come to this pass had Russia adhered to its compliance obligations.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Just to be clear, if the INF treaty falls apart that would mean the relocation of short-range and medium-range nuclear missiles on UK soil. The UK Government have not been critical of President Trump’s diplomatic moves, so can I take it that they would not stand in the way of the relocation of those missiles on UK soil?
Mark Field
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is highly speculative and several steps ahead. We are doing our level best to ensure that, for the reasons I have laid out, the INF treaty is not torn up and thrown away. For as long as the treaty remains in force, we shall continue our efforts to bring Russia back into full and verified compliance.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend referred to the ongoing work on multilateral nuclear disarmament. Will he express what the United Kingdom is doing? It is absolutely vital that far more visible work is done on this globally, in addition to seeking to maintain the other treaties that are a vital stepping stone towards that?
Mark Field
I reassure my hon. Friend that a lot of work does go on. It is often said that the best way to keep matters secret in British public life is to say something about them on the Floor of the House of Commons. Perhaps the floor of the UN Security Council provides the same anonymity. Whenever I go to New York, I am very struck by how many nations, particularly those who are non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, feel as strongly about non-proliferation. We continue to work very closely on it. With all the issues around Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that have been at the forefront of people’s minds over the past year, there has never been a more important time to make the robust case to which he refers.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Russia’s non-compliance with the treaty is very serious, but may I press the Minister on what assurances, with regard to the deployment of short-range and medium-range missiles in Europe, he has gleaned from our US partners?
Mark Field
That is a fair question to ask, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that this is sheer speculation. We are a long way off the idea of having to take assurances about where the siting of any weapons may or may not be. Obviously, one of our biggest concerns is that President Putin’s immediate instinct is to come out and make a rather destabilising and uncalled for comment about a further threat in this regard. Our hope is that both parties will return to the table to look at the treaty, but that would require good will, particularly on the Russian side.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The UK has a long and strong interest in this treaty, thanks in no small part to Margaret Thatcher bringing the two sides together. Tempting as it is for some in this place to enter into a little bit of America bashing, will the Minister confirm that it is Russia, not the US, that is in breach of the treaty?
Mark Field
I thank my hon. Friend for robustly putting that case. He is absolutely right; the whole issue has come to pass because of Russia’s continued and long-standing non-compliance. The truth of the matter is, as I have said, that this is not just an issue for the Trump Administration. Very robust action was taken in 2014 and grave concerns were raised about Russia’s failure to adhere to its obligations.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will recall that yesterday was the anniversary of the founding of the United Nations in 1945. In 1945, some real statesmen and women got together and said, “How do we stop these world wars? How do we stop this chaos? How do we stop the killing?” They came up with the United Nations, NATO and the European Coal and Steel Community, which became the European Union. Is it not a fact that we now have to realise what perilous times we are in and find unity in Europe to make a contribution to the peace?
Mark Field
Understandably, we often take the situation for granted. I am the father of a 10-year-old son, and we have perhaps taken for granted the fact that he is the third generation of Field menfolk who have not had to go to war. We should be aware that that is the exception, rather than the rule.
I am a great believer in utilising the strongest possible bilateral and multilateral communications, in diplomacy terms. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that one thing has been very evident in all the discussions since that fateful day in June 2016: when we leave the European Union, we have to work together in security, defence and intelligence. We have focused our minds on that a great deal, and we will continue to do so even when we are outside the European Union.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
As recently as this summer, Jon Huntsman, the US ambassador to Russia, described the INF as
“probably the most successful treaty”
in the
“history of arms control”.
Does the Minister agree with Jon Huntsman, and, if so, will he make that point to the US and Russian Governments as he meets them?
Mark Field
It is fair to say that although that treaty has particular resonance in Europe, a number of other treaties have come into place since then. There has been a new strategic arms reduction treaty, and constant discussions are taking place to try to secure non-proliferation. The treaty is clearly important in its own terms, but it is a treaty signed between two countries. We would like one of those two countries, which is clearly in breach of it, to come back to the table. Only when that happens can we be sure that the stability that came into place at the signing of the treaty 31 years ago will be maintained.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Regrettably, both Trump and Putin seem committed to tearing up the international rules-based order. What specific initiatives does the Minister anticipate the UK taking with the European Union to bolster the international rules-based order, so that we can ensure that there is a focus on reducing nuclear weapons, but also on tackling other global issues such as climate change?
Mark Field
It is wrong to suggest that America is trying to tear up the international order, although there are perhaps more threats to that order than has hitherto been the case. We will work together in as many international institutions as we can. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Germany joins the Security Council in January next year for a two-year term, and we anticipate tremendously important work being done between France, Germany and the UK in that forum to try to hold things together.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
The problem with the politics of brinkmanship is that it takes people to the brink. Is it not about time the Government used the so-called special relationship to tell President Trump so?
Mark Field
I do not want to reiterate what I have said for the last half hour, but the truth of the matter is that we have reached this point because Russia has persistently and consistently failed to meet its obligations. The important thing is not that we turn our fire in the other direction, but that we work with all our allies—we are united among our NATO allies here in Europe—to ensure that Russia adheres to those obligations.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, you know that I am by nature a conviction optimist, but my optimism—and, more importantly, that of my constituents in Bristol West, who turned to me over the weekend for hope and reassurance about the international rules-based order—is being sorely tested. I ask the Minister from the heart: what help can he give me to pass on optimism and hope for a better world?
Mark Field
I am sure the hon. Lady will be glad to hear that I am by nature a glass-half-full person, but these are serious issues. We must continue to talk, and we must continue to make the case internationally, along the lines that she has suggested.
All our NATO allies are totally united on this issue. Their consistent message is that Russia has a key role in preserving the treaty, and it must be made aware of that key role, which we agree has been a very important pillar of the European security agreement. I say to the hon. Lady, “Please do not be pessimistic.” This is one of the things about diplomacy. I know that a lot of it goes on under the radar, but we are working together with all our allies, in this particular space but also generally, where there are other breaches of the rules-based international system.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
The INF treaty has been important across the NATO alliance in preventing miscalculation. Across the alliance there has also been concern about Russia’s failure to comply. Can the Minister confirm that advance notice of the American stance was given to the alliance, and that he will press for America to keep members of the alliance up to date and informed about its position in relation to any cancellation of the treaty?
Mark Field
I am happy to confirm that we will do that. I reiterate that the United States is still in the treaty, and we will continue to engage routinely with the widest range of foreign policy and security issues with the United States and, indeed, with other partners in this regard.
Speaker’s Statement
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the business question, I wish to make a few brief remarks.
I am delighted that the House of Commons Commission has decided to support fully the three main recommendations of Dame Laura Cox’s report, namely the removal of the previous complaints procedures that are considered not fit for purpose, the call for an entirely independent process to handle complaints, and the inclusion of historical allegations. I believe that this is an important first step in our root-and-branch reform of the culture of this House.
We need to create an internal movement that looks at everything and everyone, and ensures that we all treat each other with respect. We know that more than 200 people came forward to give their testimonies to help Dame Laura to form her opinions, and we owe it to each and every one of them to get this right. Specifically, I am very keen to see the establishment of an independent body to hear and adjudicate on all allegations of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct as soon as possible. Knowing that there is a safe place—a haven—for staff and Members of Parliament to approach when things go badly wrong should send out the strongest signal yet that we are listening, we have heard, and we are willing to change.
Business of the House
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
The business next week will be as follows:
Monday 29 October—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.
Tuesday 30 October—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Wednesday 31 October—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Thursday 1 November—Conclusion of the Budget debate, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
Friday 2 November—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 5 November will include the following:
Monday 5 November—A general debate on the Dame Laura Cox report on the bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff, followed by a general debate on road safety.
Tuesday 6 November—A general debate on the centenary of the armistice.
May I start by sending the very best wishes of the House to Sir Jeremy Heywood, a man whose public service we have been so lucky and thankful to have?
Today we celebrate the coming into force 50 years ago of the Race Relations Act 1965, a critical piece of legislation that made the United Kingdom a better place in which to live and work. As Black History Month enters its final week, we acknowledge the extraordinary contribution to the United Kingdom that is made by all our black and minority ethnic communities. Finally, as we approach the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day, may I draw all colleagues’ attention to the concert in Westminster Hall being performed by the Parliament choir and the Bundestag choir at 7.30 pm on 31 October? I plan to attend and hope that many colleagues will be able to join what I am sure will be a fantastic event.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for the business—although it is still only for a week and two days. At last week’s business questions the Leader of the House said I was complaining when I asked for the dates of the Easter recess, but I am going to try again as she has not announced them, and I do not think that is a very nice way of describing what I asked for—I was just doing my job. Maybe unconsciously the right hon. Lady is irritated by my questions, but this is business questions not business discussions. Members, staff and the House need the dates in order to plan ahead.
I note that there has been no rescheduling of time for the Offensive Weapons Bill. It is a very important Bill: it covers the sale and delivery of corrosive substances, possession of dangerous knives, possession of offensive weapons. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) and other hon. Members have consistently asked the Government for action on this to protect the public. The last time the Bill was scheduled to be discussed the Government put on three statements, and the next time there were two urgent questions and then a statement by the Prime Minister. When will we have the Report stage and Third Reading?
The right hon. Lady mentioned race relations and the anniversary of the passing of the Race Relations Act 1965—by a Labour Government. A point of order was raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). He said a person was welcomed for lunch on the parliamentary estate; at rallies this person’s supporters have been pictured performing Nazi salutes. Will the Leader of the House join me in opposing far-right extremists being invited on to the parliamentary estate? Does the Leader of the House know if he read the behaviour code?
Also last week I asked about the statutory instrument on managing migration on to universal credit, saying it should be taken on the Floor of the House. I have asked for this twice, and the right hon. Lady has not given me a yes or no answer. Can she just say, “Yes it will”? We know how to pray against it; we just need a confirmation and reassurance from her that we can debate it on the Floor of the House.
Again last week I asked about Northamptonshire County Council-owned NEA Properties. The Leader of the House again did not answer the question and say what happened to £1.5 million of public money spent on unspecified projects. Will she ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to update the House?
The Government seem to be profligate with public money and state assets, because apparently the UK equity firm Cerberus misled the Government in the biggest sale of state assets in UK history. The company told the Government it was planning to offer homeowners better mortgage deals before its £13 billion purchase of former Northern Rock mortgages. It has not provided any new mortgages and 65,000 homeowners are still trapped on high interest rates. May we have a statement on the sale of the loan book from UK Asset Resolution, which was set up by the Treasury?
On the EU, can the Leader of the House clarify either now or in a letter to me—and the House—what has actually been agreed in the negotiations? In her statement on Monday, the Prime Minister said that
“95% of the withdrawal agreement and its protocols are now settled.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2018; Vol. 648, c. 47.]
The EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier said that 90% was resolved. Which is it? The Prime Minister said that the Irish border was still a “considerable sticking point”, and the European Parliament Brexit negotiator Guy Verhofstadt agrees, as he said yesterday that “progress is at 0%” until the Irish border issue is solved. The EU offered to convene a special summit in November to help the Prime Minister, but it seems that that has now been withdrawn and that the special summit will now be in December. Do the Government have any idea when Parliament can express its view on the terms of the deal? We also heard from the almost millions of people who took to the streets of London last week to give us their view.
Will the Leader of the House say whether the Finance Bill vote will be in November? Will it be before the vote on the final deal, or after? We need to know because the Procedure Committee has to respond to the letter of the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), of 23 October in which he asked that the business motion allow for multiple amendments to be tabled, selected and voted on before the main motion. This is a sovereign Parliament, not a supine Parliament.
While the Government’s negotiating strategy is in chaos, what are they saying to Sir Paul Nurse and other Nobel prizewinners about the effect on science of our leaving the EU? What are they saying to the CBI, 80% of whose members say that uncertainty has had a great impact on their investment decisions? What are the Government doing following the freedom of information request that revealed that most NHS trusts have made no preparations for Brexit, despite worries about the effect on staffing and the availability of drugs? We could have a statement on this, but better still, could the Government update the sectoral analysis on how much money they are going to give to each sector?
I, too, want to join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in sending my good wishes to Sir Jeremy Heywood. He has spent 35 years in the civil service as Cabinet Secretary, permanent secretary to two Prime Ministers at No. 10 and, among other jobs, principal private secretary to two Chancellors. His first job in the civil service was as an economic adviser to the Health and Safety Executive. We wish him all the best; we have lost a tremendous amount of institutional knowledge.
I also want to send my good wishes to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who have all taken a tumble recently. We wish them a speedy recovery.
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that some of our colleagues seem to have been a bit accident prone recently. I would add my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) to that list, and I wish them all a speedy recovery.
The hon. Lady asked for recess dates. As she will be aware, we are rising for the November recess on 6 November and returning on 12 November. We rise for the Christmas recess on 20 December and return on 7 January. We rise at the close of business on Thursday 14 February and return on Monday 25 February. I will give recess dates for the Easter break as soon as I can.
The hon. Lady asked about the Offensive Weapons Bill. The Government have tried twice to debate the next stage of that Bill, but I think all hon. Members will appreciate that there have been some important statements. This week, we had the Prime Minister’s statement on the EU Council, and I believe that more than 100 questions were asked of her. We also had an important Government statement on the untimely death of Mr Khashoggi, an absolutely shocking situation that all hon. Members will have wanted to hear about. Mr Speaker also granted two urgent questions, which made it clear that, for the second time, it would not be possible to do justice to the many amendments that Members wanted to discuss within the time agreed by the House for the debate. Unfortunately, we therefore had to delay that business again, but we will reschedule it as soon as we can.
The hon. Lady mentioned the visit to Parliament of a certain individual. I think that all hon. Members would abhor the comments and views of that individual, but I also think that they would uphold the right to free speech. This is a dilemma, and we all need to be careful about how we address it. Nevertheless, I share the hon. Lady’s concern about the views of that individual.
The hon. Lady asked about the statutory instrument on universal credit that is being prayed against by the Opposition. The Government have already scheduled more negative SIs for debate on the Floor of the House than in any Session since 1997. It is a matter of parliamentary convention that, where a reasonable request for a debate has been made, time should be allowed for that debate. I think that we have demonstrated in this Session that the Government are willing to provide time in line with that convention and to accede to reasonable requests made by the Opposition, and we will continue to do so.
The hon. Lady then raised a number of questions that are rightly for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. If she wishes to raise specific points, I can direct them to MHCLG on her behalf, or she can await MHCLG questions. She could also encourage hon. Members who want to have specific questions answered to submit written questions. I am happy to facilitate obtaining those answers for her.
With regard to Brexit, the Prime Minister made it very clear in her statement on the state of the preparations on Monday that there had been extraordinary progress. She also went through a number of areas of concern to the House, such as the outstanding issues on Gibraltar, on EU citizens’ rights here and UK citizens’ rights in the EU, and on financial payments. There has been a huge amount of progress.
The PM also made it clear that there is a serious sticking point around Northern Ireland and the EU’s desire for a backstop whereby Northern Ireland is kept within the customs union. That would lead to a border down the Irish sea, which would be unacceptable to any UK Government—I am sure that all hon. Members would agree with that. There has been great progress, but some sticking points remain.
The hon. Lady mentioned last weekend’s march for a second referendum, so it would be interesting if the Opposition made it clear whether they support a second referendum. The Government have made it clear that we absolutely do not support such a move, and we fully intend to respect the view of the people, as expressed in the 2016 referendum.
The hon. Lady asked about the meaningful vote but, as I hoped that I had explained last week, once the deal with the EU has been agreed, Parliament will have a vote on the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future partnership, and Parliament will have the choice to accept or reject that deal. The House will already be well aware that whether debate ought to be organised through a business of the House motion, and the form of any such motion, will ultimately be in the hands of the House itself, which has the power to amend, approve or reject such a motion.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the Government’s Brexit preparations. I absolutely reassure all hon. Members that the Government are preparing for all eventualities, including a no-deal Brexit. I sit on a committee that looks at least once a week at different aspects of the no-deal preparations, which are far advanced.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
My constituent Amanda Kopel from Kirriemuir has been a tireless campaigner for Frank’s law—which will support thousands across Scotland who are suffering with dementia—after losing her husband Frank to the disease at the age of 65. Amanda is now hosting a fundraising dinner on Saturday at Frank’s old football ground, Dundee United’s Tannadice Park. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should champion those who give so much to ensure that no one goes through what they have been through? May we have a debate to celebrate people such as Amanda?
Andrea Leadsom
I congratulate Amanda on a fantastic achievement and wish her great success with the event. My hon. Friend is right to highlight our gratitude for the work of volunteers, fundraisers and campaigners and some of the things that make us one of the most generous countries in the world. Through the Government’s “Challenge on Dementia 2020”, we are working towards a society in which every person with dementia receives high-quality, compassionate care from diagnosis through to end of life. My parliamentary office staff and I have all undertaken dementia-friendly training in the past couple of weeks, and I recommend it to all hon. Members. It really is a fantastic way for all of us to be more attuned to the needs of those with dementia and their carers.
Mr Speaker
I endorse that call. My own office undertook that training over a year ago—I cannot remember exactly when, but it was well over a year ago—and it is a very good training programme and well worth enjoying—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) does not need to be frivolous about it; it is in fact a serious point.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. It has been a depressing and dispiriting few weeks for those of us who are concerned about workplace bullying in this place, and Dame Laura Cox’s report contains a damning litany of the scale of the problem. The Leader of the House has been an effective champion in tackling the problem, and I am glad to see that a debate on Dame Laura’s report has been scheduled for a week on Monday.
We know that the report will be implemented in full, but it is time to challenge the ingrained culture of and the power relationships within this House, and an easy start would be to tackle the deference. That means no more “hon. Gentlemen”, no more swords, no more spying strangers or segregated areas. For goodness’ sake, it should really mean the end of people calling themselves Lords on the parliamentary estate. If we are serious about changing the workplace culture and environment, we must challenge those symbols and power relationships, and I hope that we can include that as part of our ongoing work.
Simply appalling remarks were made in the Scottish Parliament yesterday when the Conservative social security spokesperson, a Ms Michelle Ballantyne, said about the two-child benefit cap:
“It is fair that people on benefits cannot have as many children as they like”.—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 24 October 2018; c. 52.]
That comment has shocked and appalled mainstream opinion in Scotland. We do not want those 19th-century Tory Victorian values in Scotland. We want a social security system designed with dignity and respect at its heart. Can we have a debate on further devolution of social security so that the views of people such as Ms Ballantyne hold no sway in our nation?
Lastly, Mr Speaker, we are very grateful to you for allowing MP4 to use Speaker’s House tonight for the launch of our new single. We have teamed up with Musicians Against Homelessness and Crisis to draw cross-party attention to homelessness throughout the UK. I do not think we will bother the charts, and we are not seriously considering giving up the day job, but I hope the Leader of the House might be among the first to download the single this evening.
Mr Speaker
MP4 are a great band and, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, they have performed in my constituency—I have very fond memories of that experience. The band have been in Speaker’s House before, and I am keen that they should come again and again.
Andrea Leadsom
Mr Speaker, I completely share your enthusiasm for MP4. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) might want to think about a cover version of a well-known song: “You Can’t Always Get What You Want”. I will leave that thought with him.
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman: his personal involvement in the establishment of the complaints procedure and his absolute commitment to stamping out bullying and harassment wherever we see it are completely united with those of the entire working group. This was a fantastic piece of cross-party work, and there can be no doubt that all hon. and right hon. Members want to see change in this place.
The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting suggestions, and I have a lot of sympathy for what he says. I am therefore delighted to provide a debate on Monday 5 November so that we can hear from all hon. Members about the changes they want to see. I would prefer to see structural changes, rather than superficial changes to titles—perhaps something a little more deep and meaningful. I hope that on that Monday we will also be able to discuss what structural changes could be made.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the Scottish Parliament and further devolution. Of course funding for the Scottish Government, the block grant, will have grown to more than £31 billion by 2020, a real-terms increase over the current spending review period. It is for the Scottish Government to make some of their own decisions, rather than just looking to the UK Parliament to resolve those issues for them.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on childhood cancers? My constituent Mrs Lorraine Mitchell tragically lost her young, much-loved son Finn in June 2018. The family are still very raw about it and, although they do not wish to blame anyone for his death, they feel there is a lack of awareness of the symptoms of childhood cancer.
Andrea Leadsom
I am so sorry to hear about the loss of Finn. I am sure the whole House will want to send our sincere condolences to Lorraine and her family. Cancer is a terrible disease but, thankfully, survival rates have been improving year on year. For childhood cancers, 82% of children now survive for five years or more, but of course there is so much more to do and that figure will be no consolation to Lorraine and her family.
This month the Prime Minister has made it clear that she is determined to introduce a package of measures to invest in state-of-the-art technology to transform how we diagnose cancers, as well as to boost research and innovation. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) is right that it is also vital to raise awareness among doctors, who often do not expect to see cancers in the very young, so that we do not miss out on early diagnosis.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I am also grateful to the Leader of the House for the business statement. I assure her that the Backbench Business Committee is still here and that we have managed to timetable debates in Westminster Hall—they are on today’s Order Paper— for 6, 15, 20, 22 and 27 November and 4 December. I remind her that, by the week beginning 12 November, it will have been four parliamentary weeks since the Committee has had any time in the Chamber. I ask her to look favourably on our getting some time in the week beginning 12 November, because we are starting to build up a backlog of unheard debates that require Chamber time for votable motions. I would appreciate her giving that some consideration.
Andrea Leadsom
As ever, I am keen to support the Backbench Business Committee. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Standing Orders specify that it is allocated 35 days each Session. So far in this Session more days than that have already been provided—[Interruption.] He says it is a longer Session, and I absolutely accept that, but I hope he will appreciate that he was asking for a debate on folic acid, which takes place later on today, and a debate on it being 100 years since the armistice, and that debate is also being provided. So I think that we are aligned on trying to get these debates, but I hear what he is saying and will endeavour to ensure we have time allocated.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
In a world that is frail, faulted and fallen, lives that might otherwise be made brutish, nasty and even short are prevented from being so by our police forces, which stand between us and disorder. Yet, as you know, Mr Speaker, the hot-off-the-press Home Affairs Committee report I have here paints a sorry picture of overstretched police forces, rising rates of crime and fewer people brought to justice. My own county of Lincolnshire is particularly affected, with our force being one of the poorest-funded in the country. The report goes on to say that a fundamental change to the funding formula is required. I hope a Minister might come to the House by order of the Leader of the House to explain to us when an urgent review of the police funding formula is going to take place to benefit counties such as Lincolnshire and others. This is a choice: between chaos and order; between penny pinchers and the people; and between what is easy and what is right.
Andrea Leadsom
We can all enjoy my right hon. Friend’s way of putting his question. I would be delighted if I were able to do things by the order of the Leader of the House, but, sadly, that is not really open to me. He might be aware that in December 2017 the Home Office did make it clear that it would revisit plans to change the funding formula at the time of the next spending review. There is a statement from the Home Office to follow this, and indeed we have the Budget debate next week, so he has opportunities to raise this issue. There is some good news: following the 2018-19 police funding settlement, most police and crime commissioners have set out plans to either protect or increase frontline policing next year; and the police workforce has grown by 1% over the past year, following the Government’s decision to protect police funding at the 2015 spending review.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
In March, NHS England changed its guidance on conditions for which over-the-counter items should not be routinely prescribed in primary care, with one being head lice. An average bottle of head lice shampoo costs between £10 and £12, which is a significant sum for parents in the most deprived areas. The charity Community Hygiene Concern fears that that decision will lead to an epidemic in schools and communities. Please may we have a debate, in Government time, about the effects of that change in NHS guidance?
Andrea Leadsom
I was not aware of that and I share the hon. Lady’s concern; I remember the nightmare of trying to get rid of head lice when my kids were young, and I am sure all hon. Members will have their own horror stories of how persistent head lice are. I am very sympathetic about this, and if she wishes to write to me, I will be able to take it up with the Department of Health and Social Care. Alternatively, I encourage her to put in a written question to see whether she can get an answer directly.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
May we have a debate on the 384 bus, so that hon. Members can urge the Mayor and Transport for London to drop their plans to remove this much-valued bus route from many roads in New Barnet?
Andrea Leadsom
We are all big bus fans, although, sadly, I do not think I have ever taken that bus. My right hon. Friend should certainly challenge any reduction in bus services, and I thoroughly recommend that she raises the matter directly with Ministers to see what pressures can be brought to bear on the Mayor.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Leader of the House knows that we produced a report on acquired brain injury recently. One of the new statistics is that about 60% of people going into prison, when they have been properly screened, have had a brain injury; many of them did not know that. In January, we are going to have a brain screening session for all Members of Parliament. I wonder whether she could make a room available so that every Member of Parliament can go through the screening that we would like to see for prisoners.
Andrea Leadsom
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work in this area; he really has brought this issue to the House’s attention in a significant way. I absolutely support him in his desire to make that facility available to all Members. From my own passion for early brain development, I know just how profound the effect of the development of the brain and any subsequent brain injury can be on personality, character and outcomes for human beings.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
A key policy currently pursued by Sussex police and crime commissioner, Katy Bourne, is the recruitment of 200 additional officers between now and 2022. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary on the importance of supporting frontline community policing?
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend’s news about the Sussex PCC’s policy. As I mentioned in response to an earlier question, a number of PCCs have decided to increase the number of frontline police officers in their areas. We should pay tribute to all police officers and staff, who do a fantastic job every day to keep us safe. I am glad that Crawley will benefit from more officers on the beat. I encourage my hon. Friend to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can discuss with Ministers this issue, and in particular how other areas can benefit from the sensible decision of his local PCC.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
The provision of in vitro fertilisation treatment on the NHS is currently a postcode lottery, with some areas offering an entitlement to three fully funded IVF cycles while others offer just one, and there are areas where people are not offered any at all. May we have a debate in Government time on regional variations in IVF provision and the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that all clinical commissioning groups give this treatment the priority that it deserves, in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this issue. I have had constituents come to me who have had different experiences with one CCG versus another, and who have found for themselves, at the sharp end, that there really is a postcode lottery, so I am really sympathetic to the hon. Lady for pointing this out. I encourage her to seek a Westminster Hall debate so that she and others can talk directly to Ministers about what more can be done to provide fairness and equality for all those who seek IVF support.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
May we have a debate to celebrate the many local fireworks displays that will occur in the next two weeks? Tomorrow evening, the Portgordon fireworks display will put on a spectacular show for people who come from near and far. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Kenny Gunn and his team of volunteers? This year’s event is the 25th anniversary of the fantastic show that they put on for the local community.
Andrea Leadsom
I know that my hon. Friend has volunteered at the event for many years, and I understand that everyone who helps out is treated to a feast of stovies or macaroni in the village hall after the display. I absolutely join him in congratulating Kenny Gunn and all the volunteers for everything that they do to make the event bigger and better every year. Fireworks night has a particular historic resonance for us in Parliament, so it is rather fitting to be talking about it at a time when we could say that the debate here has been quite explosive on a few different fronts.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
As the Leader of the House will no doubt be aware, off-grid gas and heating oils, which are essential in rural communities such as those in the highlands, are unregulated, and there is no way for Ofgem to intervene where there is a monopoly. Will she allow a debate in Government time on the regulation of off-grid fuel and end the great winter rural fuel rip-off?
Andrea Leadsom
I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman, because this is an ongoing problem for those who are off grid. I encourage him to seek a debate, perhaps in Westminster Hall, so that other Members who represent rural areas with similar problems can share their concerns. The Government have made great efforts to try to get people on to the grid and to try to regulate better the prices that are charged, but it is an ongoing problem.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The crisis around Crossrail seems to worsen every single day, with the project delayed by nine months and having overspent by £600 million. Contradictory evidence seems to be being created by the Mayor of London and the Department for Transport, so may we have a Government statement on what is happening to get the project back on track and within budget?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. We have all been concerned to hear of the delays to Crossrail. I encourage him to raise it in the Budget debate next week where he can ask Treasury Ministers exactly what steps can be taken.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Civil Aviation Authority has just published its response to a consultation on flight paths, and it has ignored thousands of my constituents and those in other constituencies by insisting on narrowed flight paths with all the consequences that flow from that. It has also indicated, in an official document, that I did not present to it the petition signed by thousands of my constituents. As I have photographs of me presenting that petition, it means either that it is incompetent or that it is misleading the Government. Either way, it is pretty worrying for all of us. May we have a debate, or at least a statement, on the CAA and flight paths?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s experience. If he wants to write to me, I can take that up with the Department for Transport on his behalf.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I commend the Government for their investment in road infrastructure and their commitment to spend £23 billion by the end of 2020 on improving roads around the country. However, road improvements come with unforeseen consequences. Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate in Government time to discuss the upgrading to smart motorways and the impact that closer running lanes have on existing communities along the line of the motorways?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Smart motorways increase capacity, reduce congestion and improve the reliability of journey times by making the hard shoulder available as a traffic lane and by using variable speed limits to smooth traffic flow, which, of course, then supports economic growth because there are fewer queues. Almost a billion journeys have been made on smart motorways. In 2017, Highways England completed a three-year study on the M25 that shows that it is as safe as other motorways. However, if she does have specific concerns, I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate about the impact on her own community.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Last week a constituent of mine was tragically murdered outside his home. Yesterday, I held a meeting for the community so that people could voice their concerns, and the community was clear that, for too long, it has been neglected by the local council and by Government. Youth and community services have been cut and police officers taken off our streets. The Home Affairs Committee report today warned that cuts are making policing irrelevant. May we have a debate in Government time to discuss this dire consequence of police cuts?
Andrea Leadsom
I am very sorry to hear about the death of the hon. Lady’s constituent. All too often, the rise in serious violence, particularly in knife crime, has had terrible consequences for too many people, especially young people. We are determined to tackle this issue, which is why we have introduced a new £40 million serious violence strategy that will help to tackle the changing nature of crime, and we are giving extra powers to the police to tackle knife crime through the Offensive Weapons Bill. We want to reach a place where every member of the public is served by a force that is rated at least good. Currently, nearly a third of forces are not, so standards do need to be raised and be more consistent to keep our communities safe.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Yesterday, the loan charge action group lobbied Parliament. It represent 100,000 families, including those of nurses, doctors, teachers, social workers and contractors. Retrospective taxation by this Government going back 20 years means that many of these families will lose their home and be forced into bankruptcy and, I am afraid, some will commit suicide. That cannot have been the intention of the Government. May we have a statement from the Financial Secretary next week so that we can ask him questions about something that I am sure the Government did not intend to happen?
Andrea Leadsom
I was aware yesterday of a lobby here in Parliament of those affected by the loan charge issue. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise it. I encourage him to seek an opportunity to raise it during the Budget debate next week where Treasury Ministers will be available, or indeed on 6 November in Treasury questions.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent, Mavis Walton, is 99 years old. In her early years, she worked in munitions, building the bombs that served our country. These canary girls have never had the recognition that they deserve. I am sure that the Leader of the House understands the urgency of this question. With Remembrance Sunday just around the corner, could we have a statement from the relevant Minister, announcing medals for these women? It is the least that they deserve.
Andrea Leadsom
May I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to her constituent on reaching the age of 99, as well as the work she did as one of the canary girls? It is the most amazing story of self-sacrifice and contribution to keeping our nation safe. There is a debate a week on Tuesday—not on the canary girls, but on the Armistice centenary—so the hon. Lady might choose that opportunity to raise this issue more fully, but there will certainly be other chances to pay tribute to all those who gave such great service to our country.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
We have recently returned from a very important—if not tumultuous—meeting of the Council of Europe. Is not it time that we had a debate on the activities and future of the Council of Europe?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend has raised this issue with me previously and I am sympathetic to the idea. We have a lot of discussions about Europe at the moment, but I am keen to consider this matter and to give it time when we can.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I think it is true to say that all Members of the House believe that veterans and ex-servicemen and women deserve the very best care that the state can possibly offer, but it would also be true to say that that is just not happening. It is a scandal that the Ministry of Defence does not record suicides among ex-servicemen and women. This happens in many other countries and we should make it happen here. May we have a debate on the issue?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is right to ask what more we can do to support our armed forces and the amazing work that they do on our behalf. He will be aware that this Government introduced the armed forces covenant into law to improve support for our armed forces, but he has raised an interesting question that I encourage him to raise directly with Ministers at the next Defence questions.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has mentioned the parliamentary concert next week, when the Parliament choir will sing—together with the German Bundestag choir—Mozart’s “Mass in C Minor” to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Armistice. Perhaps we could have a debate on or consider mentioning —as I am sure you will be at the concert next week, Mr Speaker—the conflict between Britain and Germany that occurred at the same time in east Africa. I speak as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Tanzania. Hundreds of thousands of Tanganyikans died in the conflict as a result of either the violence or the resulting famine, yet they are hardly ever remembered in these circumstances. It would be a great honour to those people, who gave their lives in a conflict that was nothing to do with them, if we were to remember them as well.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is quite right to mention the appalling events that took place in the great war. Of course, a week on Tuesday we will have a debate on the centenary of the Armistice, which would be a good opportunity to raise all the appalling events and to commemorate the sacrifice of so many right around the world.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
In September, I met London Members of the Youth Parliament to discuss the recommendations of the Youth Violence Commission. I was pleased that they had all read the report and understood the importance of adopting a public health approach. I have to be honest; I worry that too many politicians, including the Home Secretary, bandy around the words and do not really understand them. So, for the third time, has the Leader of the House spoken with the Home Secretary to agree when we will debate this very important issue?
Andrea Leadsom
I have written to the Minister concerned seeking advice on the next steps, in response to the hon. Lady’s request that I do so. As she will know, there is now a new £22 million early intervention youth fund and a new £3.6 million national county lines co-ordination centre was launched last month. There is a lot more to do and I hope to have an answer for her shortly regarding the next steps.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Last weekend, Ben McAulay from Galashiels in my constituency led a sponsored walk in the borders to thank medical staff from the Royal Hospital for Children in Glasgow who treated him after he was born with a hole in the heart. Ben is just two years old. Will the Government find time to debate the efforts of local fundraisers, and to congratulate Ben and his family, and all those who took part in Toddle Around Tweedbank?
Andrea Leadsom
As always, my hon. Friend raises a really important issue for his constituency. Many of us are aware of the heroic efforts by our constituents to raise money, awareness or support for excellent causes. I am delighted to join him in congratulating Ben, his family, and all those who took part in Toddle Around Tweedbank last week.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the cricketing community at Hanging Heaton cricket club on the edge of my constituency? In the past two years, under the chairmanship of John Carruthers and the captaincy of Gary Fellows, they have won no less than seven trophies, including the Heavy Woollen cup, which is England’s oldest competition, and they are the first Yorkshire team to win the national Twenty20 cup. May we have a debate on the contributions that sporting clubs make in our local communities?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a very significant achievement by that cricket club, and I absolutely join her in congratulating it on all its efforts and achievements. She is right to raise the amazing contribution of sports clubs to life in our communities through keeping people fit and outside, where they can enjoy the fresh air and have a bit of fun. I join her in paying tribute to them. She might well like to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can share her experience with Ministers directly.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Last year, three cyclists died on the roads of Lincolnshire and seven children on bicycles were seriously injured. We would all like to see more people cycling—in my flat part of Lincolnshire, it is very easy—so may we have a debate on what more we can do to make cycling safer and more attractive, and also to work on road safety?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have introduced a £1.2 billion cycling and walking investment strategy to encourage more people to get on their bike or to walk, and also to make roads safer for vulnerable users. We have also invested £7 million in making cycling the natural transport choice in cities right across the UK. That is very important so that we reduce emissions, leaving a cleaner and greener Britain for our children. I absolutely applaud him for raising this important issue. I encourage him to seek a Back-Bench debate, because there are very strong advantages to encouraging more people to get out of their cars and on to the roads on their bicycles, or on to the pavements on their feet.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will have seen reports in the Yorkshire Post that for large parts of 2019 and into 2020, east coast main line trains from the north to London will terminate an hour outside London, at Peterborough. This is due to remodelling work at King’s Cross station, with another £250 million to be spent on top of the £500 million already spent. In Hull, we are used to timetabling chaos and trains terminating early, and we are certainly not used to money being spent on our station. With major disruption planned for next year and into 2020, may we have a statement from the Transport Secretary about how this will affect all our constituents?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is quite right to raise this issue affecting her constituents. I was not aware of those reports. I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate, because it is right that she should raise this issue directly with Transport Ministers.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Debenhams store at the heart of Torquay’s harbourside has been an anchor retailer for Torquay for many years, so this morning’s news that 50 stores might close will of course be causing considerable concern back in my constituency. May we have a statement on what actions the Government are taking in response to this news, what reassurances they can offer, and what action will be taken to mitigate the consequences in towns where stores do close?
Andrea Leadsom
I realise that this will be a stressful and uncertain time for affected employees. Debenhams has confirmed that it plans to close up to 50 of its stores over the next three to five years following the announcement of the company’s preliminary end-of-year results to the stock market. The company has not specified the number of jobs that will be affected or, indeed, which stores will be closed. However, I can certainly confirm that Jobcentre Plus, through the rapid response service, will be ready to support any employee affected by this announcement.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Last week I raised with the Leader of the House the fact that Facebook is only paying £7.4 million in tax. Today, the Information Commissioner has fined Facebook the maximum amount of £500,000 for sharing our data without our consent. The Leader of the House may be aware that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) and I are leading an inquiry into the impact of social media on people’s mental health. Will she find time for a debate on the impact that social media platforms are having on tax, information and public health?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue again. The impact of the online harm that is being tolerated by social media giants is a grave concern to the Government. We are working towards the publication this winter of the online harms White Paper, which will set out measures to tackle online harms and clear responsibilities for tech firms to keep citizens safe. Social media firms must take far more responsibility for illegal and harmful content on their platforms, with robust processes in place for removing content—he is absolutely right about that.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
A large number of young people in my constituency have contacted me this week to encourage me to support the private Member’s Bill tomorrow on lowering the voting age to 16. Unfortunately, that Bill is 17th on the list and therefore will not be heard. May we have another debate or statement from the Government on their plans to modernise the private Members’ Bills system so that such Bills can be debated in the House and voted upon?
Andrea Leadsom
As I have indicated on a number of occasions, we are extremely pleased with the progress of a number of private Members’ Bills in the House during this Session. In fact, more private Members’ Bills are progressing to Royal Assent than in previous Sessions. Such Bills include some very important measures, such as that which became the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, as well as the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill and the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill, which will be considered tomorrow. Some very important private Members’ Bills are coming forward, and it is right that the House needs to support those Bills. We continue to look at the process for the consideration of private Members’ Bills. I am always happy to look at proposals from the Procedure Committee, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to put forward alternative solutions, I encourage him to speak to the Procedure Committee about them.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
May I add the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) to the list of those who have fallen in the House? He missed the Trafalgar night dinner on Wednesday because of a fall and is no longer fit to do duty here.
May we have a debate on automated gates? They are increasingly being used to provide security in schools, businesses and housing estates, yet no qualification, inspection or registration regime is required for them. They are classed as machinery and are dangerous and hazardous if not correctly installed and maintained, so can that be looked at?
Andrea Leadsom
I join the hon. Lady in wishing my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire a speedy recovery. This is an appalling time of year for slips and trips.
The hon. Lady raises an important issue that is certainly worth raising directly with Department for Education Ministers, perhaps in an Adjournment debate, so that we can get a clear picture.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
May we have a debate in Government time on fuel poverty? The warm homes programme was scrapped in 2010, and the take-up of the energy company obligation grant and loans is very poor. The weather has certainly turned in my constituency. We have had universal credit for a year now, and many people are presenting needing food bank vouchers and fuel vouchers. We need Ministers to come to the House to explain how families can meet the costs of basic essentials while they are pushed below the breadline by changes to universal credit.
Andrea Leadsom
I am very sympathetic to the problem of fuel poverty. We know that “eating or heating” can be a real challenge for families right across the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this Government have introduced the energy price cap Act to ensure that consumers are not ripped off due to their loyalty to their energy provider. We have also strengthened the energy company obligation to ensure that companies support people who are struggling to meet their heating bills. Since the scheme was launched in 2013, more than one in 16 homes have benefited from over 2.2 million improvements to insulation and so on. We have a target to improve energy efficiency in 2.5 million homes by 2030, and under the warm home discount scheme, more than 2 million low-income and vulnerable households are provided with a £140 rebate off their energy bill each winter.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
One of the Leader of the House’s predecessors told this House that English votes for English laws was necessary to eliminate the anomaly whereby Scottish MPs in Westminster can vote on matters affecting England but English MPs cannot do likewise on issues devolved to the Scottish Parliament. He went on to call English votes for English laws England’s
“own piece of the devolution settlement”.—[Official Report, 22 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 1184.]
Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out her view of Tory MPs representing Scottish constituencies continuing to vote on England-only matters, and also of elected Tory representatives in Scotland viciously and cynically attacking SNP MPs for not voting on England-only matters?
Andrea Leadsom
I entirely agree with the views of my predecessor on the purpose and value of the English votes for English laws changes, which I think have proven to be successful. As to the other point that the hon. Lady makes, this is the first time that she has raised it with me and I would be very happy to discuss it with her.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has already heard about the news of the Debenhams store closures. May we have a debate about her Government’s persistent failure to deal with tax avoidance by online retail giants, which is not just decimating our city centres and high streets, but causing very significant job losses?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady should welcome the fact that the Chancellor made it clear only recently that he will seek to find a means to ensure that online giants pay their fair share of tax. She will appreciate, as I am sure all hon. Members who care about the economy in this country will appreciate, that we do not want to drive online businesses overseas, where they can be subject to cheaper rates. This is therefore an international challenge, and the Chancellor has made clear his determination to resolve it. I am very sympathetic to what she says. Equally, she should pay tribute to the efforts of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which has closed the tax gap considerably and clamped down on tax avoidance and tax evasion since 2010 in a way that was never achieved when the previous Labour Government were in office.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am pleased to hear the statements this morning in support of implementing the Cox report. Anyone who heard Lisette Whittaker’s testimony on Sky News yesterday will understand how important it is that this place is seen to clean up its act. I appreciate that the Leader of the House has scheduled some time in a week or two for a debate on this, but it seems to me that if we are to have a truly independent arbitration process—one that has the confidence of both parties and that is seen to be robust—we may well need legislation. Will the Leader of the House commit to securing enough time to implement such legislation during this Session?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman fully appreciates that I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and determine legislation right now with no thought of either what the House wants to do, or what those we would wish to consult—the victims—would like to happen. However, I can absolutely assure him that I am determined to grasp this awful problem and to stamp out bullying and harassment once and for all, wherever we see it in this place.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My Kilmarnock constituent Maureen Patterson had a number of issues with her employment and support allowance claim. In her opinion, during one phone call with a decision maker, the person on the phone was rude and disrespectful and used inappropriate language, which upset her. When that was followed up with a complaint, the call could not be checked, because the Department for Work and Pensions does not routinely record outbound calls—we can only guess why. May we therefore have a Government statement about the DWP making a simple procedural change to record all calls, not just incoming ones, to provide protection for vulnerable constituents?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He could raise it with DWP Ministers directly in a parliamentary question, or if he wants to write to me, I can raise it on his behalf.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Invictus games reminds me of Steve Jones, a former Royal Air Force technician and son of Blaenau Gwent. Steve held the British marathon record for 33 years and won the London, New York, Toronto and Chicago marathons. May we have a Government statement on how we can properly recognise Steve Jones’s contribution to world athletics and to public life in south Wales?
Andrea Leadsom
I think that the hon. Gentleman has just neatly paid his own tribute to his constituent. All hon. Members will have great examples of constituents who have contributed enormously to the sporting life of this great country. I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can pay full tribute within the hearing of Ministers.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Fireworks season is upon us, which will bring pleasure to lots of people, but anxiety to our nation’s pets. I am campaigning with the Dogs Trust to raise awareness of how people can enjoy fireworks without causing unnecessary anxiety to our animals. May we have a debate in Government time about how we can best do this?
Andrea Leadsom
I think the hon. Gentleman can hear he has a lot of support from right across the House. We all like a good fireworks night but, of course, it is a real problem for pets and a real challenge to ensure that we do not cause harm, damage and fear to the nation’s pets. He is absolutely right to raise this point. I would encourage him to seek a Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate so that he can make his thoughts clear, as I am sure he would have a lot of support.
Immigration: DNA Tests
Thursday 25th October 2018
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 View all Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the use of DNA evidence in immigration applications.
Many thousands of immigration applications are received every year that involve people applying to come to, or remain in, the UK on the basis of a family relationship with somebody who is already here. If an individual does not have sufficient evidence to show that they are related to someone in the UK, they sometimes choose to take a DNA test to prove the relationship. Officials then consider this evidence as part of their claim. Very often, it will be to the advantage of the applicant because it can establish family relationships beyond doubt where the other available evidence is sometimes insufficient.
The provision of DNA evidence must, however, be entirely voluntary. At the end of June, it was brought to our attention that there were some immigration cases where the provision of DNA evidence had been made a requirement for the issuance of a visa or the granting of leave to remain, and not simply a request. Such demands are unacceptable. I want to take this opportunity to apologise to those affected by this practice. In this context, the law states that the provision of DNA evidence should always be voluntary and never mandatory. My predecessor made that absolutely clear when she brought in changes in 2014.
Once we were made aware of the issue, we immediately commissioned an urgent internal review, which I am publishing today. Copies will be available in the Library. My right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister will also be writing today to the Home Affairs Committee to outline the key points of the review and to provide a copy. The review covered the legal aspects of DNA use, policy and guidance, caseworking practice and correspondence with applicants, as well as oversight arrangements relating to the use of DNA. It outlines a number of areas in which guidance was unclear or wrong. It also outlines areas of operational practice where DNA evidence was improperly required and provides some initial information on the possible scale of the issue. The review makes a number of recommendations about how to address the root causes within the border, immigration and citizenship system that led to this operational practice.
This review is not, however, a conclusion to the work. The numbers and information in the report have been collected at pace and still need to be fully assured and are subject to change. Further work is needed to ascertain the full scope of the issue. Regardless of the number of people affected, one case is still one too many, and I am determined to get to the bottom of how and why in some cases people could be compelled to supply DNA evidence in the first place.
The majority of cases identified so far have been part of Operation Fugal, which, according to the report, started in April 2016 to address patterns of fraud in some specific family and human rights immigration applications. Letters sent as part of that operation incorrectly stated that the applicant must provide DNA evidence and that not providing such information without a reasonable excuse would lead to the application being refused on suitability grounds. It has been reported that 83 applications had been refused at the time the report was written, and seven of those seem to have been refused on suitability grounds due solely to a failure to provide DNA evidence. A further six appear to have been refused on suitability grounds for failure to provide DNA evidence, although that was not the sole reason.
In addition to Operation Fugal, we have identified an improper approach to the use of DNA evidence in two further areas. The first relates to adult dependent relatives of Gurkhas. In January 2015, a scheme was expanded to allow adult dependent children of Gurkhas who were discharged before 1997 to settle in the UK. Published guidance stated that DNA evidence may be required and that applications may be refused if that evidence was not provided without a reasonable excuse within four weeks. That published guidance was wrong and has now been updated. The report suggests that 51 cases were identified where DNA evidence was requested from applicants at their own cost. At the time the report was written, we were aware of four cases from the same family unit whose application was refused solely because they did not provide DNA evidence. Those decisions have now been corrected.
The second case relates to Afghan nationals. In 2013, applications to resettle in the UK from Afghan nationals who were formerly employed by the UK Government began to be accepted. The terms of the scheme included mandatory DNA testing for family groups, paid for by the UK Government. Current investigations suggest that no one making an application under that scheme was refused because they did not take a DNA test. None the less, mandatory testing should not have been part of the scheme, and that requirement has now been removed.
Let me be clear: across our immigration system, no one should have faced a demand to supply DNA evidence, and no one should have been penalised for not providing it. In particular, I extend my apologies to those Gurkhas and Afghans who have been affected. The two schemes I have described were put in place to help the families of those who have served to keep our country safe, and I am sorry that demands were made of them that never should have been made.
I reassure the House that I am taking action to correct the situation. First, I have given clear instructions that officials must not seek DNA evidence on a mandatory basis in any immigration case. Secondly, I have set up a new taskforce so that anyone who feels that their case may have been influenced in any way by an inappropriate demand for DNA testing can get advice and support. Thirdly, we will be looking to reimburse any individual who has suffered financial loss because we required DNA evidence when we should not have done so. Fourthly, we will continue closely to examine whether this approach might have been taken in any other parts of the immigration system. So far we know that three cohorts have been affected, but we must investigate whether there are any more. I will be asking for independent assurance on everything we do as we establish the facts. Finally, I know that the immigration system is operated by many highly committed people, but we must ensure that the structures and processes they use are fit for the modern world and fit for the new immigration system that we will be bringing in after we leave the European Union.
I will review more broadly our structures and processes to ensure that they deliver a system in a way that is fair and humane. I will now consider what form that review will take, but my starting point is that it would be helpful to have independent oversight. The review will also need to build on the lessons learned from the Wendy Williams review, and I will want Wendy to play a full part in this wider exercise.
When I became Home Secretary, I made clear that I would be prepared to take action to put right any wrongs as and when I became aware of them. Today, I promise the House that I will get to the bottom of what has gone on in relation to DNA evidence, and I will build an immigration system that provides control but that is also fair, humane and fully compliant with the law.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for prior sight of his statement on the improper use of DNA evidence. He will be aware that all our constituents, including those of immigrant descent, want an immigration system that is robust, but they also want it to be fair. The widespread public response to the Windrush scandal tells us how seriously the general public take the question of fairness in our immigration system.
We now know from the Home Secretary’s statement that the mandatory provision of DNA was neither legal nor fair. He stated that under the law, DNA evidence must always be provided on a voluntary basis. Can he therefore clarify that the demand for DNA evidence was, in itself, illegal, and if so, what legal consequences will follow? Members across the House will no doubt be shocked to learn that among the first victims of this abuse were Gurkhas and Afghans—men and women who put their lives at risk to keep this country safe. Ministers must clarify how long this practice has been taking place, and under what internal Home Office regime it was allowed or encouraged and at what level.
The Home Secretary spoke about reviewing the current structure and processes of our immigration system, which I welcome. He will be aware that the Law Society has said that there are serious flaws in the immigration system, and one indicator of those flaws is the state of appeals. In the last year for which we have records, fully 50% of appeals were upheld, which is an indicator of a system that is internally flawed. Waiting times for immigration appeals have risen by 45%. The Home Secretary talks about independent oversight, but what more effective oversight is there than a system of appeals that is speedy and that works?
Finally, I remind the Home Secretary that the visa and immigration service faces what will possibly be the biggest single influx of applications in its history when EU nationals who live in the UK seek to settle their status post Brexit. It is a matter of urgency that we put in place processes and structures that can guarantee a speedy, efficient and fair resolution of cases.
Sajid Javid
I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments. She asks a number of reasonable and sensible questions to which I will reply. She started by saying that the immigration system must be robust—we all agree with that, absolutely—and that it must also be fair. The issue I have brought to the House today is of concern to us all and something that, at least in this regard, is not fair. As I said at the start, this should not have happened, and there should not have been any request in any immigration case, whether family related or not, for mandatory DNA evidence.
The right hon. Lady asked me to make it clear that this is illegal. My understanding is that the Home Office has never had the express power to require anyone to give DNA. It has never had that express power. There have been a number of Acts over time that have referred to this and tried to make it clear. As I mentioned in my statement, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was, when she was Home Secretary, the first Home Secretary to put it completely beyond doubt by amending an Act—I think a 2007 Act—and then again in 2014 to make it absolutely clear in law. As I say, the Home Office has never had the power to compel anyone to provide DNA evidence.
The right hon. Lady will know that we want to have a further review to look into this much more deeply and wanted independent assurance of that. She may be interested to know that we are finding practices, in the cases to which I have already referred, that might go back further. For example, in 2009 two pilots were established by the then Government: the familial testing pilot, which used DNA evidence to verify a child’s biological connection with a family during asylum screening; and the human provenance pilot, which used DNA testing and a technique called isotope analysis to attempt to establish whether asylum applicants were from the country of origin that they had claimed. It is therefore important that we have a review that is thorough and goes back as long as it needs to, because, as I say, the Home Office has never had the power to compel people to supply DNA evidence.
The right hon. Lady referred to the broader review of structures and processes. I thank her for welcoming that. She referred to work that has already been done by the Law Society on part of the structures and processes in the immigration system. I have a great regard for the Law Society, which does just this type of work. It is just the kind of organisation we should be listening to.
The right hon. Lady also referred to the appeals process. There have, over recent years, been a number of changes to the appeals process which I think make it fairer, but she is right to raise this issue. This is clearly a very important part of the immigration system, making sure it is fair and that people feel they have had the right to make their case properly and the right to have a person take a second independent look at their case. There is work to be done there.
Finally, the right hon. Lady referred to the EU settlement scheme, which again she is right to refer to. It is a big and ambitious scheme which, over a relatively short period of time, is designed for 3.5 million European citizens. We want them to stay in our country. Whether there is a deal or no deal, we have been very clear that we want them to stay and we want to make that as easy as possible. I do not doubt how ambitious that is. The Home Office has dedicated a significant amount of resources to it and there is significant oversight of the scheme. I can tell her that the reports from the beta testing that has taken place so far, on a limited number of cases in their thousands, have been very encouraging. If I remember correctly, I think most people found that they could register in about 20 minutes through the app system that has been developed. Approximately over 90% of people asked how they found the process said that it was very straightforward and easy to use, but she is right to raise this issue. It is one of those things we all need to get right.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I welcome the review and the recognition that the provision of samples should be on a voluntary basis. However, does the Home Secretary agree that firm immigration control is important and that providing this sort of evidence is a way for an applicant to have their application dealt with in a speedy way? It is good evidence and a very useful thing. I do not know whether he would like to clarify that, because it seems to me that, yes, it should not be mandatory, but it is a very good thing and often in the interests of the applicant.
Sajid Javid
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. First and foremost, it is worth stating again that it should never be mandatory to supply DNA evidence. He is right to point out that where individuals feel it can help their case and want to submit DNA evidence voluntarily we should always be open to that. He is also right to say that in many, many cases it helps individuals to make their application and get exactly what they want.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for advance sight of the statement, although when I saw the title “Immigration” I hoped perhaps he was coming to provide a more detailed answer to my question to the Prime Minister yesterday about the crisis in the visa system. But then the Home Secretary has his fair share of crises to choose from.
The Scottish National party accepts that from time to time DNA can be a fair and useful tool in processing immigration applications, but it is clear now that it has become dangerously and unethically overused by the Home Office, making life unnecessarily difficult for applicants. We have seen: children who already have British passports being asked for DNA when trying to renew them; other kids being asked for a new test, even though it had already been provided; and, the root of today’s statement, people receiving demands for their DNA even though the guidance said that alternative proof was perfectly acceptable. This is another example of the Home Office being out of control and the result of a migration target with which they are still completely obsessed. It is more evidence that the hostile environment lives on.
We welcome the clarity that it is absolutely not and never will be mandatory for DNA testing, and we welcome the apology that has been offered. Will the Home Secretary confirm that it is now policy that acceptance of the relationship by Government for a different purpose, such as child support, will be sufficient for immigration purposes? Is it the case that if the relationship is accepted for one immigration or nationality purpose, it will not subsequently be challenged unless there are exceptional reasons? Is there guidance on how to handle unexpected DNA results? I understand there used to be publicly available guidance about what happened if a DNA test showed that the biological father was not the presumed father. Where is that guidance, and will it be released and updated?
Finally, sometimes DNA can be the only means of proving a relationship in refugee family applications and Dublin III applications. Such tests used to be funded by the Home Office for family reunion, as many refugee families are destitute. Why not return to that position if the Government are genuinely keen to pursue a humane approach? Of course, they could also do that by adopting the private Member’s Bill on family reunion promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil).
Sajid Javid
First of all, the hon. Gentleman refers to DNA testing with regard to the immigration system being overused. I would just caution him. As I said in my statement, more work needs to be done to see how widespread what should not have happened, the mandatory use, was. In many cases, it is voluntary. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that it should not even be allowed in voluntary cases. [Interruption.] No, he is not. Clearly, where an individual feels it would help their application, I think it is right and proper that the Home Office takes that into account. But let me be clear: where it has been mandatory that it is not acceptable. That should not have happened.
The hon. Gentleman asked about other parts of Government, in particular the Department for Work and Pensions, and, where there is voluntary testing, whether it can be used between Departments. I am happy to take that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets a response on that.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the funding of DNA tests and whether there is help with funding. The key point is that if a DNA test is funded by the Government, for whatever circumstances, it should only be in a case where it is voluntary, not mandatory.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for rapidly coming to the House and giving us this statement, which sets out a clear plan of action for how to deal with what may arise. The immigration system is highly complex. I look forward to the Government, when they come forward with the immigration Bill, setting out something new, transparent and workable, and which, with sufficient training, will keep our borders safe.
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right to point out that the immigration system is highly complex. We have seen evidence today of where it can sometimes go wrong. We should not let that take away from the fact that it successfully processes tens of thousands of applications each year, with lots of hardworking people in the Home Office doing a stellar job. When it goes wrong, however, we need to react. He is right to link this with the new immigration system, which we will introduce after we leave the EU. This is a further lesson on how we can simplify it, maintaining control while also making it fairer and more compassionate.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The contents of the Home Secretary’s statement are shocking and may have had a devastating impact on families’ lives. It would be helpful to know whether everyone affected has been contacted. I welcome the Home Secretary’s approach but, given that this comes after the Windrush crisis, he will recognise that it means that things have gone badly wrong in the Home Office. So that we can pursue the matter, will he ensure that the full Alex Allan review is sent to the Select Committee? Will the Secretary of State ensure that the review that he has rightly set up is wide enough to include the impact of Government targets, such as the net migration target, on decisions that may have been made on a casework basis?
Sajid Javid
I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments and for her work as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, which rightly provides scrutiny of such issues. I hope that we have the opportunity to discuss the matter further at the Committee. As I have said, alongside the report that has already been done on this, we will be writing to the Select Committee today with further information that will be published for the whole House.
The right hon. Lady brought up the Windrush scandal, in which, as we now know, many people were wrongly treated. There is ongoing work in terms of lessons to learn from that. As I mentioned in my statement, the work that is being done independently, especially by Wendy Williams, is an important part of the wider review of structures and processes. In relation to Windrush, the right hon. Lady mentioned the Alex Allan review. The Cabinet Secretary is considering that issue, and we will shortly proceed with what we can and cannot publish on that.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Home Secretary spoke with alacrity and clarity about the need to get the system right and, in the words of the shadow Home Secretary, to make sure that it is both fair and robust. To that end, it is important that people who choose to offer DNA should be encouraged to do so, if it speeds up their cases. All of us across this Chamber have dealt with cases in which there have been long delays and people have been left in almost endless limbo. The voluntary provision of DNA might be a helpful tool for dealing with that. I hope that the Home Secretary will look at that in the review that he is about to carry out.
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is good to remind the House that my statement was about the wrongful mandatory use of DNA evidence; as he says, DNA evidence can be a very helpful tool when it is completely voluntary. I understand that the Home Office has, in some cases, helped individuals to do that on an absolutely voluntary basis, because the provision of such evidence can help people, especially if they are in particularly distressing or difficult situations or they are otherwise vulnerable. I think it is helpful to point out that when someone chooses to provide DNA evidence, and it is purely their choice, that should be taken into account.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for his statement, and particularly for his tone and apology. Is it not the case, however, that the DNA scandal suggests that the Home Office’s hostile environment policy pushed officials to break the law? Will his structure review consider a root-and-branch reform of this nasty culture and consider giving the processing of immigration and asylum applications to a new unit that is independent from the Home Office—a unit that can ignore political pressures and simply work efficiently, fairly and lawfully?
Sajid Javid
I think the right hon. Gentleman meant to refer to a compliant environment. That is an environment in which we make sure, on behalf of British citizens, that we have a robust immigration policy that is fair to people, but that enables us to be strong on those who set out to abuse our immigration system and enter or settle in our country illegally—for example, in fraudulent cases—not least to be fair to those who use legal routes for migration to or settlement in the UK.
It is worth reminding the right hon. Gentleman that for five years he was part of a Government that worked on compliant environment policies, which began many years before that with previous Governments. He now appears to have a problem with some of those policies, but I do not remember him raising them when I sat alongside him in Cabinet. That said, there absolutely are lessons to learn from this. We must conduct the right review, with independent oversight, and learn those lessons.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Unlike the vast majority of my colleagues in this Chamber, I am an immigrant to this country. I am proud to be the first Polish-born British Member of Parliament. When I came here in 1978, if the state had asked me for a DNA sample, I would have had no problems whatsoever with providing that. I disagree fundamentally with the Secretary of State, and I do not understand why he is apologising. Does he have the full support of the Cabinet for his statement? What is the matter with the United Kingdom asking for a DNA sample when somebody comes to this country and seeks to become a British citizen?
Sajid Javid
Let me take my hon. Friend’s question in two parts. First, he pointed out that he is an immigrant. I love immigrants who have settled in our country, and that includes him. On his second point, whether or not he thinks we should mandate the provision of DNA—he is entitled to his own view on that—the law does not allow us to mandate it, and that is why I am apologising
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary confirm that, where the Home Office holds DNA evidence that it did not obtain lawfully, and that it should not have obtained, the evidence will be deleted from its records?
Sajid Javid
That is another good question. I wish I could confirm whether the Home Office does or does not hold such evidence and if it does, to what extent, but I do not have answers to all the questions. When I have the answers and they have been independently looked at, I will be very happy to come back to the hon. Lady and give her a proper response.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Can the Home Secretary confirm that, where there is other proof of parentage—for example, a birth certificate—a DNA test, even if provided on a voluntary basis, will not be requested?
Sajid Javid
I am happy to confirm that for my hon. Friend. It is worth highlighting that applicants who voluntarily provide DNA often do so because they are in conflict zones, because they are from countries where records have been destroyed or have become unreliable, or because they have become refugees and can no longer access their records. In such a case, someone may voluntarily offer DNA, which can provide a quick way of determining the facts and helping that person.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In his statement, the Home Secretary said that the matter was brought to Ministers’ attention at the end of June. I very much welcome the statement, but I wonder whether Ministers asked questions of officials at any point to reassure themselves that DNA samples and evidence were being used appropriately.
Sajid Javid
As I understand it, the matter was originally brought to Ministers’ attention by a question from the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), who is on the Opposition Front Bench. I believe he had concerns as a result of a constituency case and he tabled a written question, to which the Minister for Immigration responded, about Government policy. As I have said today, it has never been Government policy to request DNA mandatorily. The question prompted further investigation, and within days of the matter being brought to the Minister’s attention an internal review was launched. We now have the outcome of that first review, but, as I have said, it is not the conclusion of this. We need more answers.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
How many immigration applications are made each year on the basis of a family relationship, and in what proportion is DNA voluntarily supplied? Presumably, the Home Secretary has been given that information. Will he share it with the House?
Sajid Javid
That is a good question. I do not have the information at hand, but I would be very happy to write to my hon. Friend.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My constituent Maria, who has dual nationality, has been resident—indeed, a teacher—in the UK for 41 years and has been married to a UK national for as long as I have been alive, but she is unable to obtain a UK passport in her married name, by which she has been known in this country for four decades. She has been told that, if she changes back to her name of 40 years ago, she may be able to obtain a passport. Will the Home Secretary look at her case, and exercise some of the common sense that has been lacking thus far?
Sajid Javid
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said about his constituent’s situation. If he sends me further information, I shall be happy to take a look.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Former Gurkha soldiers who served in our armed forces deserve the very best treatment. Specifically, what new speedier systems will be established to support those brave families better in the future?
Sajid Javid
It is worth our reminding ourselves that the Gurkhas have been an integral part of our British armed forces for more than 200 years. We owe them—the Gurkhas who are in Britain and the Gurkhas who are not, and their predecessors—immense gratitude for everything that they have done to help our country. That is precisely why a scheme was already in place, before the DNA issue arose, to help Gurkhas to settle in the UK if they chose to do so. We have discovered through the review that was carried out that when the scheme was expanded to allow even more Gurkhas—and the adult dependent children of Gurkhas who were already here—to settle, some were improperly asked to provide DNA, and, indeed, told that they must do so. In the cases of which I am currently aware in which that was done and visas were refused, we have corrected the position and the visas have been issued, but at this point I cannot tell the House that those are the only cases, because there is a further review to be conducted.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s determination to improve the immigration system. The use of DNA evidence is an important tool, but it is clearly not mandatory under the law. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the significant number of Gurkha veterans and their families who reside in my constituency that he will continue to ensure that all outstanding cases, and those not yet identified, are dealt with expeditiously and in a way that is sympathetic to the people involved, and that those who have been affected will be compensated?
Sajid Javid
I am happy to give my hon. Friend some assurances on just that issue. The cases at which we are currently looking, particularly those involving Gurkhas, will be dealt with expeditiously, as he has requested, and there will be no mandatory requirement for DNA evidence. Should people wish to provide it, that is entirely up to them, and of course it will be considered. As I said in my statement, we are looking at ways of reimbursing those who may have had to spend money on DNA tests.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The doctrine of ministerial responsibility makes it clear that Ministers are responsible for what goes wrong in their Departments even if they knew nothing about it. I appreciate that the Home Secretary has taken that to heart today, and has come to the House to apologise. There is also a long-standing convention that, when something goes badly wrong in a Department—and surely acting illegally is pretty badly wrong—the only honourable course for the Minister is to resign. Does that doctrine still apply in the Home Office today?
Sajid Javid
I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be interested in helping to sort things out when they go wrong. That would be the way in which to try to help his constituents if they were caught in something like this. However, it is appropriate that, as we do further work and carry out a review, we look into the chronology of all this and how far it goes back. I have asked officials to establish the exact chronology of events, and to find out what advice was given to what Ministers and when.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Mandatory DNA testing is not only illegal but unethical, and it can put lives at risk. I therefore welcome the statement, but does my right hon. Friend agree that in building a fair and humane system, we must also recognise the importance of the confidentiality of medical records? Will he look at a letter that I received from NHS Digital on 22 October, in my capacity as Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, expressing concern about revised guidance that followed assurances given in the House about the importance of confidentiality earlier this year?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend speaks with experience of these issues, and I strongly agree with her that mandatory DNA testing is not only unlawful but unethical. She raised the issue of confidentiality and mentioned a letter that she was sent as Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. I should be happy to look at that and to respond to her fully.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary has outlined a shocking and illegal breach of trust on the part of Home Office and immigration officials. He will, of course, be aware that the Home Office is the only Department of its kind in Europe that operates an arbitrary and non-limited form of detention. Under that system, 27,000 people were detained last year, 50% of whom were subsequently released. They included one of my constituents, Duc Nguyen, a Vietnamese national who is a victim of human trafficking and human slavery. It is against Home Office protocols to detain such people. Will the Home Secretary undertake to investigate whether coercive DNA-gathering practices have been taking place in detention centres under the Home Office?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman states that we have an “arbitrary” approach to detention; I strongly rebut that—we do not have such an approach. He should know that when anyone is detained, there must be a reasonable prospect of removal within a reasonable time. In recognising that improvements could nevertheless be made to our detention system, we commissioned the Shaw review, and as the hon. Gentleman may recall, I came to the House not so long ago to respond to the review and accepted many of its recommendations.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Having repeated his commitment to improving the fairness and humanity of the immigration system, will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the system of visit visas, which causes so much misery, so often, to thousands of British people just because their families happen to be outside the European Union?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend raises an important point. As we define and set up a new immigration system when we leave the EU, we shall have much broader scope and opportunities to improve that situation.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Immigration cases are often complex, and I thank the Home Office and its team for the sensitive and timely manner in which they have dealt with a number of cases that have crossed my desk recently. I also thank my right hon. Friend for the wider review of the immigration system. Surely what is most important is that we get the structures right so that fast and clear decisions can be made when necessary.
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. She is absolutely right about the importance of that wider review of the structures and processes. She refers to cases that she has had to bring to the attention of Ministers. Although it seems from what she said that those have been resolved, Members should not feel that they must keep bringing cases to Ministers’ attention. I should like to see a system in which the vast majority of cases are sorted out properly in the first place, and that is the kind of system that I am trying to build.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I welcome the comprehensive review of the immigration system that the Home Secretary has announced. In that fair and humane spirit, will he incorporate the provisions of my British Indian Ocean Territory (Citizenship) Bill, which is on the Order Paper for consideration tomorrow, in the provisions of the new nationality legislation? They would give British citizenship to people descended from British subjects who were forcibly removed from the Chagos Islands in the late 1960s.
Sajid Javid
I commend my hon. Friend for spotting this opportunity. He has brought forward a Bill that I know that he has thought long and hard about, and we have discussed it. It might be helpful—if he feels that it would be helpful—for him to have a meeting with the Immigration Minister to discuss the matter further.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
The Home Secretary has mentioned ensuring that we have fairness in our immigration system. Fairness also means dealing with abuse of the system, particularly through the use of fraudulent documentation. When I was a Minister, I was struck by the increasing complexity of fraudulent cases, particularly those that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency was investigating in Swansea. Will the Home Secretary give an assessment of the extent of fraudulent documentation in the immigration system and tell us what the Home Office is doing to tackle it?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to point that out. Everyone wants a fair and compassionate system, but they also want that system to be robust and for the rules to be enforced. If someone tries to take advantage of the system, clearly that must be pursued. I referred in my statement to Operation Fugal, and I understand that one reason why it was begun was that a pattern of fraud was recognised by Home Office officials. When many of those cases were investigated by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service brought charges against individuals. I will not talk about those particular cases, for obvious reasons, but that helps to demonstrate that when people are engaging in wrongdoing, we will pursue that.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend’s leadership and the robust steps he is taking, but can he confirm whether there are any known outstanding cases? If so, will the processing of them be expedited?
Sajid Javid
There may be some known cases that are outstanding and we are expediting them. Operation Fugal addresses some complex cases involving DNA that might have been mandatorily required and that need further investigation, but we will try to deal with those within days when we can.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
My right hon. Friend alluded in his statement to guidance that was unclear or wrong. Can he assure the House that guidance for the new immigration system that will be put in place as we leave the EU will be correct and clear?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I am happy to give that assurance, and it is a perfectly fair question. When a Home Secretary stands at the Dispatch Box and says that there was wrong guidance in the past, one of the lessons that can be learned without needing a review is that we must be much more careful about guidance in the future.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
On my right hon. Friend’s wider review of structures and processes, will he ensure that Border Force, a key Home Office agency, fully considers the potential of new and advanced technologies in making sure that our future border security system is both fair and efficient?
Sajid Javid
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Border Force and some of the technology it uses are already way ahead of the situation in many other countries. However, as we develop a new immigration system, Border Force has been looking at what other countries have done that we could learn from. Lessons were learned, for example, from a recent exercise with Australia, and we can look at some things that are being done there.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Anyone choosing to drive on Britain’s roads does so with the understanding that from time to time a police officer may stop them and require them to provide a specimen of breath, failing which they could be liable to prosecution. In those circumstances, does my right hon. Friend agree that a system that is optional and scrupulously safeguards the human rights of immigrants is exactly as it should be?
Sajid Javid
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He has again emphasised that providing DNA should be optional, because it can help those individuals, and if they choose to provide it, we should take that seriously, but it should be just that—optional, not mandatory.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for his statement and welcome the steps that he is taking to put this situation right. Does he agree that it is essential in cases of this nature that the Government act not only quickly, but with openness and transparency?
Sajid Javid
I agree, and that is why I decided to publish and put in the Library for the whole House to see the internal review that has already been done and was commissioned within days. That is why I will be writing to the Home Affairs Committee today as well, and no doubt there will be future opportunities to keep the House updated, whether by me, the Minister for Immigration or another Minister.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s openness and bluntness in his statement. DNA evidence will clearly be useful in cases when people have come from areas of conflict and other forms of records might no longer be available. How will he look to set out to those who are looking to apply for immigration status in this country how DNA evidence will help them, but is not required to be provided by them?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Let me refer again to the scheme to help Afghan nationals. Afghanistan is a good example of a clear conflict zone. Many Afghan nationals, such as interpreters, help British forces, and we owe them a duty of respect and have a responsibility to them. I had already made changes a few months ago to welcome more of them to settle in our country, if they wish, and from a safety point of view we must help in such cases. Under that scheme, they should not have been told that this was mandatory. Once the system is explained, people might believe that providing DNA will help them and then choose to do so. In those cases involving Afghan nationals from that conflict zone, given the work they did for this country, we can even look to pay for that, but the key point is that the process should always be optional for them.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I welcome the news that my right hon. Friend has set up an urgent review, but given that DNA evidence has been sought from applicants under successive Governments, does he agree that this issue should not be politicised, as happens all too often?
Sajid Javid
I agree, but a decision on whether an issue is politicised cannot be taken by just one side of the House. This is an important point, and it is worth reminding ourselves that after the wrongs done to the Windrush generation were first discovered, a review of historical cases over the summer showed that almost half those cases in which people suffered detriment took place under the previous Labour Government. Since then, there has been a much more co-operative approach across the House. I think that that is what the public want to see, and it is what they would want to see in this case as well.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
A compassionate immigration system is, above all, an efficient immigration system, so I welcome the review my right hon. Friend is carrying out. Will he, however, commit that in the new immigration system, which will of course apply to far more people once we have left the European Union, he will make the case for using DNA to speed up applications, because that can be very much in the interests of applicants?
Sajid Javid
That is an important point. I think it is already the situation that where someone chooses to provide DNA evidence, it generally speeds up their case, because DNA is pretty straightforward to analyse and to make a determination about compared with cases involving paperwork that sometimes goes back and forth between the applicant and the Home Office. In cases where people choose to do this, the matter should be dealt with as quickly as possible.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement that he will review the immigration system. Can he assure the House that concerns raised in cases from across the United Kingdom will be taken into account when forming these new structures to ensure that our new policies and system will provide not only clarity, but consistency across the UK?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right. As we review our immigration system and consider any changes, it is crucial that they will apply clearly and uniformly in exactly the same way throughout the United Kingdom.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
It is 34 years since Dr Alec Jeffreys pioneered the use of DNA finger- printing at Leicester University, which we in the UK should be incredibly proud of. Can the Minister assure me that that will continue to be an option for settling immigration cases?
Sajid Javid
I can assure my hon. Friend that when someone makes the choice for themselves to provide biometric details or evidence, such as through DNA fingerprinting, we should absolutely take that into account, not least to help them with their case.
Bill Presented
Fisheries Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Secretary Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Secretary Dominic Raab, Dr Secretary Fox, Secretary David Mundell, Secretary Alun Cairns and Secretary Karen Bradley, presented a Bill to make provision about policy objectives in relation to fisheries, fishing and aquaculture; to make provision about access to British fisheries; to make provision about the licensing of fishing boats; to make provision about the determination and distribution of fishing opportunities; to make provision enabling schemes to be established for charging for unauthorised catches of sea fish; to make provision about grants in connection with fishing, aquaculture or marine conservation; to make provision about the recovery of costs in respect of the exercise of public functions relating to fish or fishing; to confer powers to make further provision in connection with fisheries, aquaculture or aquatic animals; to make provision about byelaws and orders relating to the exploitation of sea fisheries; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 278) with explanatory notes (Bill 278-EN).
Folic Acid Fortification
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Nigel Adams)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered folic acid fortification.
This week is Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Awareness Week, so it seems fitting to be having this debate today. The House will have heard the Minister with responsibility for public health, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), announce during Health questions on Tuesday that the Government are launching a public consultation in early 2019 on the proposal to add folic acid to flour. This issue has attracted wide interest from a large group of stakeholders, and it is important that we properly consult on the proposal, to ensure that all people have an opportunity to register their views. We will be encouraging people to take part in the consultation.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
During his speech, will the Minister tell the House why the Government have apparently ruled out a publicity campaign to encourage those who are at risk to take folic acid supplements and are instead proposing this mass medication?
Nigel Adams
We will be encouraging all stakeholders, as well as the public, to take part in the consultation. I will certainly look into the matter that my right hon. Friend has raised and ensure that someone writes to him.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Given the evidence that neural tube defects such as spina bifida emerge between the 18th and the 28th day after conception and that most women are not taking folic acid supplements in accordance with the Government’s guidelines before conception or during their first trimester, does the Minister agree that supplementation alone does not work?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in this matter and has done some extraordinary work on it. He makes an important point. This is why awareness is crucial for all women of childbearing age, including those who are not pregnant but might be considering becoming pregnant.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I recall that we did not know our first child was on the way until 22 weeks; we were not particularly planning to have a baby. It is not always easy to foresee these eventualities. Will the Minister take into consideration the fact that not everyone can prepare for eventualities that they are not expecting?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend makes a perfectly plausible point from personal experience. Not everyone can see into the future and plan accordingly. A large number of pregnancies are unplanned, so I understand his point.
Rebecca Pow
When I was pregnant with my third child, I took folic acid supplements and ate lots of green vegetables, which contain folic acid. However, as colleagues have said, many people do not know that they are pregnant early enough to start doing that. Also, they might not have received the right advice from the medical profession. This consultation is important on those grounds, but will my hon. Friend also ensure that it is very wide ranging so that consideration can be given to all aspects, including the appropriate safeguarding of voluntary fortification by the food industry? Will consideration be given to coeliacs, who use gluten-free flour? This has to be a very comprehensive consultation if it is to be effective.
Nigel Adams
It does; my hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. A number of foods already contain folic acid, and the consultation will have to take that into consideration. It will also look into what a safe upper limit is in that regard. This is why we want to ensure that the consultation is as thorough as possible.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is being extremely generous in giving way; we are not allowing him to make much progress. May I take it from his last assertion about an upper limit that the consultation, which we welcome, is not so much about whether folic acid will be included in flour but about what the upper limit will be?
Nigel Adams
I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the consultation, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would not expect me do so. It will have to take an upper limit into consideration; indeed, that will be an incredibly important part of the consultation. We want to ensure that the consultation is properly done, that it is thorough and that it can advise Ministers. We will be coming back to the House to report back on it.
I shall move on, if that is okay with colleagues. I think from the tone of the debate thus far that the announcement has been well received. We will be properly consulting on and considering all aspects of this very important issue. I note that many colleagues are well informed about it and that they are aware of the reason behind the calls for mandatory fortification, but it might be helpful to summarise again what we are trying to prevent. Neural tube defects are birth defects of the brain, spine or spinal cord. They happen in the first few weeks of pregnancy, often before a woman even knows that she is pregnant. The two most common neural tube defects are spina bifida and anencephaly. These are devastating conditions, and the Government are fully aware of their effect on the individuals themselves and their families. We have already heard the acute interest and strength of feeling on this issue from Members of this House and in the other place, including on what can be done to ensure that pregnant women have healthy pregnancies and give their unborn babies the best protection during the crucial early weeks of development.
Unless someone is pregnant or thinking of having a baby, they should be able to get all the folate they need by eating a varied and balanced diet. Existing pregnancy advice to women who are trying to conceive or who are likely to become pregnant is that they should take a daily supplement of 400 micrograms of folic acid until the 12th week of pregnancy. They are also advised to increase their daily intake of folate by eating more folate-rich foods, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) referred. Examples are spinach and broccoli, as well as foods voluntarily fortified with folic acid, including a wide range of breakfast cereals.
We know, however, that around half the pregnancies in the UK are unplanned. In those that are planned, it has been estimated that only half of all mothers took folic acid supplements or modified their diet to increase folate intake. This has led to calls for the mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid so that women can get it from dietary sources other than foods that naturally contain it. Successive Governments have not considered that mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid to be the best way to protect public health and have instead promoted the use of folic acid supplements as a part of a wide range of pre-conception and post-conception advice to women of childbearing age. However, we are now taking the opportunity that this consultation presents to seek the public’s opinion on this proposed important change.
My colleague the Minister with responsibility for public health responded to a Westminster Hall debate in May 2018 that was secured by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), who has campaigned tirelessly on this issue. In his response, the Minister confirmed that the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—I shall refer to it as COT from now on—had agreed to take forward for further consideration the issue of tolerable upper limits for folate. COT published its interim conclusions in July 2018, but it has yet to finalise its detailed review. In summary, COT concluded that the potential masking of pernicious anaemia was still an appropriate and relevant endpoint on which to base a tolerable upper level, but that the level at which this effect started to occur was unclear. It concluded that further analysis of the data was necessary, but that the upper level would not decrease—that is, it would stay at 1 microgram a day or could be increased—as there was no convincing evidence that masking occurred at levels of intake below 1 microgram a day.
COT has discussed this again at this week’s meeting, and as soon as the outcome of its consideration becomes available, it will inform Ministers’ thinking in respect of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition’s recommendations on the mandatory fortification of flour and about folic acid advice generally. We will reflect that outcome in the consultation document, together with whether we need to take any other action, such as discussions with the industry on removing folic acid from products that are currently voluntarily fortified, such as breakfast cereal. We will also be working closely with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the consultation, its responses and any resulting conclusions.
Rebecca Pow
It goes without saying that it would be worth examining the results of tackling anaemia by fortifying flour with iron and of tackling tooth decay by putting fluoride in toothpaste. Similar things have been influenced by approaches to general health, and we could learn great lessons from such examples.
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is be research and evidence in these areas from around the world, and we hope that it will feature in the consultation. We certainly need to learn from the approaches taken elsewhere.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I am grateful to the Minister for what he is saying and warmly welcome the announcement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), on Tuesday. It is a tremendous step forward. As for looking at what has happened across the world, well over 85 countries, including the United States, have mandatory fortification of flour, so there is an awful lot of evidence out there, and clearly it should be taken into account.
Nigel Adams
It certainly will. The right hon. Gentleman takes a keen in this area, and other countries such as the United States, as he mentioned, Canada and Australia have introduced mandatory fortification. We need to learn from all that, but we also need to understand the dietary habits of the United Kingdom. It is worth mentioning that no EU country currently has mandatory folic acid fortification, but he is right and we will certainly be learning from the experiences elsewhere.
I assure the House that Ministers have always taken the issue of pre and post-conception advice seriously, and the public consultation will allow us to fully explore the fortification of flour. This is the start of a detailed dialogue with the industry, the general public, relevant charities—I thank Shine, which has done so much campaigning in this area—and members of the scientific community. This Government will ensure that the decisions we take will come after the full consideration of all views. It is my pleasure to introduce this important debate, and I look forward to hearing the contributions and views of Members.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I thank the Government for allowing time for this important and very timely debate. It is a pleasure to be here responding on behalf of the Opposition on World Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Awareness Day, as the Minister pointed out, to speak about folic acid fortification, particularly after the announcement by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), earlier this week that the Government will be consulting on fortifying flour with folic acid. After decades of campaigning, I know that the announcement has been welcomed by campaigners and their families, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) for their tireless campaigning on this issue. I too welcome the announcement although I have some further questions, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could elaborate on them later.
As early as 1991, the Medical Research Council published a report recommending that white flour in the UK should be fortified with folic acid, which had been shown in other countries to prevent neural tube defects in foetuses. Similarly, mandatory fortification, with limits on voluntary supplementation, was backed by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition in 2006 and again in 2017. Why, then, has it taken successive Governments so long to get to this point? The latest national diet and nutrition survey statistics state that 91% of women of childbearing age have a red blood cell folate level below the level estimated to lower the risk of NTDs. It is therefore clear that more needs to be done. In fact, the Public Health and Primary Care Minister said during Health and Social Care questions this week that he was
“convinced that the evidence shows overwhelmingly that this is something we should be doing.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2018; Vol. 648, c. 135.]
I therefore wonder about the purpose of the consultation.
The Minister may have already answered some of my questions, but is the consultation about seeing whether flour should be fortified with folic acid or is it just about establishing what the upper limit for folate levels should be? Modelling undertaken by Food Standards Scotland in 2017 indicated that fortification at the recommended levels, with a capping of voluntary fortification and supplements, can achieve the reductions in NTD risk without increasing the number of people consuming the upper recommended limit. Is this a scenario that the consultation will consider? Up until now, the Government have continued their policy of voluntary folic acid supplementation for women of childbearing age. Does the Minister expect that advice to continue throughout the consultation and evaluation period?
The press release published this week by the Department of Health and Social Care says that the consultation
“will launch in early 2019”.
Is the Minister able to tell the House exactly when the consultation will launch and how long it is expected to last? The evidence has been available for decades, and people have been campaigning on this issue for many years, so it seems only right that the consultation should conclude as quickly as possible. With that in mind, does the Minister have any expectations of when we will have the results of the consultation? Finally, as the Minister will know, not everyone eats bread or is able to eat wheat flour, so will the consultation make any assessment of how we reach those who do not eat bread or wheat flour? Will the fortification include only wheat flour, or will it extend to other flours, such as corn, rice and gluten-free flour?
That is a lot of questions for the Minister to answer, especially as it is not his brief—he is doing a fabulous job of stepping into various areas across Government—and I am sure that colleagues across the House will have further questions for him, but as this change has been such a long time coming, we are very keen to get an answer to the key question: when will flour be fortified with folic acid in the UK? I look forward to this debate and to hearing the Minister’s answers at the end.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It seems that a lot of us are substituting for other people today, but it is nice to speak in a debate on a topic on which there is a little consensus and agreement for a change, so I welcome the Government making time for this debate and the announcement about the fortification of flour with folic acid. It is particularly appropriate, as the Minister said, to be holding this debate on World Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Awareness Day. As the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said, this change has been a long time coming—the Medical Research Council first called for it in 1991—so I hope that the consultation will be concluded as quickly as possible so that we can move to an implementation phase.
Since 1991, the evidence of the benefits of folic acid fortification has only increased to the point at which there is now clear consensus across the medical community about the importance of this step. Dr Linda de Caestecker, public health director of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and Dr Jonathan Sher, an independent consultant on pre-conception health, education and care based in Edinburgh, have both written and campaigned extensively on this issue. In February this year, they published a paper in which they said that folic acid, or vitamin B9, could accurately be described as “vitamin benign” given its strong benefits and lack of significant downsides. They also pointed to the important fact that the lack of fortification has led to a health inequality gap, saying in a recent edition of Holyrood magazine:
“Relatively well-educated, well-informed, well-off women tend to follow the advice”—
to take supplements before and during pregnancy—
“while their less advantaged sisters often do not. The gap has also grown between women with well-planned and well-timed pregnancies and the large percentage of Scottish women who become pregnant unintentionally, unexpectedly, or with minimal preparation.”
The challenge is particularly acute in Scotland, which has more live births of babies with spina bifida per head of population than anywhere else in the UK. In turn, as the Minister hinted at, the UK rate is higher than that in many other parts of the world where fortification has already been introduced. Over 70 countries have already adopted this practice and have seen a decline in neural tube defects as a result. That is one of the reasons why last year the Scottish Public Health Minister, my good friend—and now the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government—Aileen Campbell, along with her Welsh Assembly counterpart, wrote to ask the then Secretary of State for Health to move forward on fortification.
The Scottish Government have also made it clear that they are prepared to take their own steps on fortification if necessary, but the evidence and research mentioned by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West shows that fortification will be more effective if it is rolled out at the same time across the whole UK. It is welcome that action is at last being taken. The focus of the consultation must therefore be on how fortification can be delivered effectively, not on whether it should be implemented in the first place. I echo some of the hon. Lady’s questions.
When the announcement was trailed earlier this month, the chief executive of Spina Bifida Hydrocephalus Scotland, Andy Wynd, said that the decision to proceed with fortifying flour with folic acid will have a monumental impact on the health of babies in Scotland. I pay tribute to the work of SBHS and other organisations, such as Shine and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which have long campaigned on this issue and which provided helpful briefings in advance of today’s debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) works very closely with SBHS, which is based in his constituency. SBHS does incredible work to raise awareness of spina bifida and to support people and families with the condition to live happy and fulfilling lives. On that note, I wish the best of luck to my friend, and former constituent, Tommy Ga-Ken Wan who, with his dancing partner Piotr Marczak, is taking part in SBHS’s “Strictly Come Prancing” event in Glasgow later this month, which will raise much needed funds and awareness—as does the annual SBHS gala Burns supper, which I had the privilege of attending in 2016.
I attended that Burns supper with another constituent, Jackie Lennox, whose sister Tracy was born with spina bifida. Tracy sadly passed away in 2014—as we have heard, spina bifida is a life-limiting condition—and in her memory Jackie established Tracy’s tree, which has become a new but much loved tradition in Maryhill. The memorial Christmas tree outside the burgh halls is decorated each year with baubles bearing the names of loved ones who have passed away.
It is difficult to know how Tracy’s life, and many others, might have been different if the fortification of flour with folic acid had already been routine, but what we do know is that the introduction of fortification will reduce cases of neural tube defects and complicated pregnancies and will allow more babies and families to live longer and less complicated lives. That is why it is important that the Government now move as quickly as possible to take these last steps towards implementation. We must make sure we take this opportunity to finally make it, and get it, right.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this welcome debate on a welcome Government intervention. I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), the Public Health Minister. He is not here today, but he has been excellent in listening to the evidence on this case in recent months, and he moved decisively to announce the consultation on Tuesday. As the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), said, the consultation is welcomed on both sides of the House and, indeed, by the scientific community not just in the UK but across the world.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on folic acid fortification. He has spoken with great bravery and sincerity about his family’s experiences, and he and many others have played a far more important role than I have in bringing home to Members the importance of this change.
I also pay tribute to Shine, and particularly to its current chief executive Kate Steele. The charity does wonderful work to support individuals and families with spina bifida and neural tube defects, and it has played an excellent role in campaigning for fortification.
Lastly, I thank Lord Rooker. He campaigned on this issue long before I and many others did. In truth, he has been the leading advocate in Parliament for this change over a long period. This is a proud day for him.
Obviously there will be some controversial questions. The Government are proposing a big public health intervention, and it is right that they are consulting, but the Public Health Minister was right to say on Tuesday that the evidence is overwhelming and that he is convinced by the evidence.
I will spell out the scale and gravity of these conditions in the UK to bring it home to Members, and to those who might read or watch this debate. We now all know that neural tube defects are the failure of the spine to close at either end, and they happen early in pregnancy. Neural tube defects can lead either to spina bifida or anencephaly.
Anencephaly occurs in 40% of neural tube defects and is fatal. Children with anencephaly do not survive, and often they die very quickly after birth. Spina bifida is where the spinal cord does not properly form, which obviously leads to poor mobility, poor bladder control, bowel issues, often learning disabilities, mental health problems, physical health problems and lifelong disability. It is an extremely grave condition.
Neural tube defects affect around 1,000 pregnancies each year in our country. In this country, two foetuses a day are aborted following the diagnosis of a neural tube defect, and two children a week are born with such birth defects.
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful case, for which I am grateful. Does he agree that one of the most frightening statistics is that young women under the age of 20 are five times less likely to take folic acid supplements? That strengthens the case for mandatory flour fortification.
Owen Smith
From memory, I believe that just 6% of women aged under 20 supplement their diet prior to or, indeed, during pregnancy. It is clear that this particularly affects younger women, perhaps because they have not yet read the literature, gone to classes or otherwise been informed. The other reality is that there is a much lower level of folate among women from working-class and black and ethnic minority backgrounds, which is another fundamental reason for addressing this in the manner proposed.
Shine estimates that the cost of caring for people with spina bifida and other neural tube defects is around £500,000 over their lifetime, but the point is not the financial cost to the NHS or to the taxpayer; the human cost to families and individuals is what counts. In this awareness week for spina bifida and hydrocephaly, Shine has been highlighting some of those human examples.
One example is of a young woman called Nicky, who had spina bifida. She could walk a little, but she used a wheelchair most of the time. She loved animals, and she volunteered at a local animal sanctuary and rode at weekends. At 18, before she intended to start a university degree in animal care, the shunt that controlled her hydrocephalus needed replacing. It went wrong, and she had three dreadful years of ill health during which she was largely housebound or hospitalised. She obviously could not continue with her education, and she died at 21.
That is not an uncommon case; unfortunately, it is all too common. There is no certainty, of course, that had Nicky’s mother supplemented her diet prior to conception, or indeed during pregnancy, Nicky would not have been born with spina bifida. However, we have known for almost 30 years of the clear evidence that there is a dramatically greater likelihood that Nicky would have been born without a neural tube defect had her mother had the requisite levels of folate in her system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said, it was in 1991 that the Medical Research Council first published the evidence showing a 72% reduction in the likelihood of conceiving a child with a neural tube defect if the mother supplements her diet with folic acid.
The history is interesting, because successive Governments have not responded to the evidence with fortification, on which this Government are now consulting. I make it clear that I think the last Labour Government should have done so. We did a huge amount through bold public health interventions. Smoking cessation is the best example, but there are myriad examples. The last Labour Government were very good at addressing public health needs. However, this is one area where they did not undertake to act and they should have done. The position our Government and successive Governments took was to move towards advice that diets should be supplemented with 400 micrograms of folic acid during and prior to pregnancy. As many people have said, the problem is that 40% of pregnancies are unplanned; only 30% of women take the right dose of folic acid even if they are supplementing; young women tend not to supplement at all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) said; and working-class women and women from black and ethnic minority backgrounds have lower levels of folate because they do not supplement very often. Across the whole population, irrespective of demography, about 75% of women do not have the right levels of folate and therefore are at increased risk of giving birth to a child with a neural tube defect.
Other countries have been bolder than us. As the right hon. Member for Belfast North said, about 85 countries have chosen to introduce mandatory fortification, including America, Canada, South Africa and lots of countries in South America. It has not happened in Europe, but this will be another example of Britain leading the way in Europe.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has shown great leadership on this issue, and Shine has been a fantastic help to campaigners across the country on this issue. Does he agree that families in south Wales are glad the Government are moving on this but that they want this consultation to be completed much more quickly—as quickly as possible—because they think this important public health initiative should be brought in sooner rather than later?
Owen Smith
That is right. I understand why the Government need to consult. There has been a debate about the upper level of folate. As I may discuss briefly later, the evidence suggests that there is not necessarily any issue associated with an upper tolerable limit. A recent paper in January last year by Professor Sir Nicholas Wald, who did the original research in the early 1990s, very effectively debunked the notion that there is an upper tolerable level of folate. Other studies have done the same, but I am confident that that will come out in the consultation. The point my hon. Friend makes about families in his south Wales constituency and mine is well made. To illustrate that, using the 72% statistic, let me say that had the Labour Government introduced this measure in 1998, at the same time as the United States did, 3,000 babies would have been saved from being born with spina bifida or anencephaly.
There is no evidence from countries across the world that have undertaken this measure of ill effects in the population. There is lots of evidence to show that there are other ancillary benefits; one study in Norway has shown a diminution in the volume of autism in the population. There is huge scientific support for this measure, including from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; the Royal College of Midwives; the British Maternal and Fetal Medicine Society; the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare; the British Dietetic Association; the Governments of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland; the chief medical officers in Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland; Public Health England; Public Health Wales; the Food Standards Agency; and Professor Sir Colin Blakemore. The list goes on and on. Crucially, the Government’s own Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition has advocated this measure for the best part of 20 years. So it is a measure whose time has come. It will be enormously beneficial for our population, and if we in this House undertake to do it, we will contribute to saving hundreds of lives each year and thousands of lives over the years to come. I commend the Government for having the bravery and foresight to do it.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) in this debate because, as has been mentioned, he co-chairs the all-party group and has done a fantastic job in raising awareness of the issue in a relatively short time. It is not that long since the all-party group was set up, so this must be something of a record in getting the Government to move. I thank the Minister for what he has said and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who is the Minister responsible for public health, for what he said on Tuesday and for the speed with which he has moved on the issue. Many, many people have been involved in highlighting it over the years, and I join the tributes that have already been paid to people such as Lord Jeff Rooker, to the scientists who have been involved, to the charities in Scotland and to Shine, which operates in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the UK. They have done tremendous work in campaigning on the issue over many years, in addition to the work they are doing to help families who have someone with spina bifida or hydrocephalus in the family and who have lost someone who had these conditions.
This is a great debate and this measure is a great positive move. Clearly, we would wish that it had happened earlier, but we are delighted it has reached this stage now. I thank the Government for taking it forward now, because it is important that we move ahead and do not lose time, as too much time has been wasted. The approach adopted over many years by the Government has been of not wanting to go down the road of what is described by some people as “mass medication”. All sorts of genuine issues have been raised about the effects, but the science proves clearly and objectively that this is safe and will prevent thousands of people from being born with severe conditions—and that does not take into account the many tens of thousands of terminations that happen as a result of parents learning that their unborn baby may be affected severely by spina bifida or hydrocephalus.
The approach of Governments previously—to offer advice, education and information on supplementing diet with folic acid—has not worked. That is clear. Over the past 20 to 30 years, it has not made a difference, mainly because of some of the issues we have discussed: the fact that almost half of pregnancies are unplanned; a lot of people in certain demographics and age groups are simply less likely to know about this or come across the information that is out there; and these neural tube defects develop 14 to 28 days into pregnancy—once that has happened, it is too late to start taking folic acid supplements. I have no argument with the advice on taking folic acid in the early stages of pregnancy, but in the vast majority of cases it will be too late—these supplements need to be taken in advance of conception if they are going to make a difference; that is the reality of it. If we continue with the current policy, the problem is simply going to continue.
There is an alternative, it is safe and it has been proved to have worked in more than 85 countries, including Australia and the United States. The scientific consensus is enormous, and the hon. Member for Pontypridd read out the list of scientific bodies, clinicians and others who are all agreed about the need to proceed along this path. Therefore, I, too, join the call that this should not be a long, drawn out consultation, as ample evidence is already available on the issue. The consultation should be proceeded with as quickly as possible to ensure that this is introduced, and I make the plea that it should be introduced across the UK. We had a debate yesterday about Northern Ireland, and I do not want to get into all of that, but on this issue the Government have taken steps to introduce sensible, non-controversial measures where appropriate.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) mentioned the high incidence in Scotland and we have a high incidence in Northern Ireland. He is absolutely right to make that point and I congratulate the Scottish Government on what they have done on the issue, but we cannot allow some kind of interregnum in Northern Ireland. This issue is important and I think that there would be absolute consensus across the board in Northern Ireland that any change should happen there alongside the rest of the United Kingdom.
The effects of these conditions on the children who are born with them are extreme. I have spoken previously about my own son, Andrew, who was born in 1990 with spina bifida and hydrocephalus, and about the severe impact that had on his life. As he grew older, there were more severe effects. Of course, that did not just affect him. He was a bright, cheerful boy and a lovely child. The lives of those who came into contact with him were enriched, and our lives were certainly enriched by having him. It had severe effects on him—he was hospitalised many times and had shunt operations and setbacks—and there was also an effect on the wider family. It affected the entire family circle. We had great family back-up and support, but in many cases people do not have that. This is a really massive issue, and that is where charities such as Shine and others come into play, providing such fantastic support, help and assistance.
If it can be prevented, why are we not taking the steps that need to be taken? Andrew had eight years of a wonderful life, in the sense that he was loved and gave out so much love, but the problems that he had and faced throughout that short life were very, very difficult for him and for the rest of his family. We would love to see children being born without having to have these conditions. They do not need to. We now have to move on with this issue. There is no good reason not to. Some abstract arguments may be advanced and some theoretical arguments made about liberty, mass medication and other things, but they have been clearly disproved—they are a total red herring. Folic acid fortification is something that can be done that is safe and that works. It will not prevent these conditions entirely—some children will still be born with them—but there will be a lot fewer, so we need to move forward.
I welcome what the Government have done. They have listened and responded. Let us now get on with it. I pay tribute to everyone who has been involved in the campaign and got it to this stage. The political agenda is dominated by certain subjects but, if nothing else happens, if we can get this done, it will be a great legacy for this Government and this Parliament.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) for initially asking the Backbench Business Committee for this debate. When time could not be allocated, the Government allowed for this time instead, so I thank them, too. I thank my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) for their tireless campaigning. I was moved to speak in the debate because of my hon. Friend’s presentation at the Backbench Business Committee, of which I am a member. This whole issue seems like such a no-brainer, so I am really pleased that the Government have come forward with a consultation. I echo the comments of Members who want the consultation to happen quickly so that we can get measures in place.
In preparation for this debate, I went to Holland & Barrett to find out the cost of folic acid tablets. Just one jar costs £8.49. Being pregnant is an expensive business, as is having children. As well as folic acid pills—if someone is aware of their pregnancy or intends to become pregnant—there are baby clothes, decorations, cots and car seats to buy, and all that at a time when many people have very little money and are just about managing. Do we really expect those families to spend £8.49 on supplements?
Although supplements are costly, treating illnesses caused by the lack of folic acid in the diet of expectant mothers costs the NHS far more. Studies show that adding folic acid to food reduces instances of neural tube defects by 72%. That is exceedingly significant when we consider the fact that hundreds of babies are affected by spina bifida every year in the UK. Researchers in Chile compared the annual cost of the rehabilitation and treatment of children with spina bifida with the cost of adding folic acid to flour. The results showed that for every $1 invested in adding folic acid to flour, $12 was saved in medical treatment and care. Adding folic acid to our flour will not only benefit the would-be victims of neural tube defects, but save significant amounts for the NHS and therefore the taxpayer. It is estimated that it would cost only £200,000 a year for us to add folic acid to flour, and there are only 10 major flour mills in the country. It could be done very easily and very quickly.
Of course, there is a small minority of people who do not like mass measures such as the fortification of foods, but food fortification is nothing new and already makes an important contribution to diets in the UK and overseas. In the UK we already fortify white and brown flour with iron, thiamin and niacin after they are removed with the bran during the milling of wheat, so the relevant technology and infrastructure is already in the UK industry. We add other substances to food for flavour, for texture or to increase the speed of production, so why would we not add a harmless ingredient, for which there is no upper limit, that could save hundreds of babies a year from being born in the UK with lifelong birth defects?
Having children is an incredibly exciting time for parents—full of hope and expectation—but it is also fraught with risk and concern. Pregnant women and expectant parents are bombarded with information about diseases and issues that can afflict the mother and the baby. If we can do one simple, cheap and effective thing to reduce the chances of a baby contracting a life-changing illness, surely it is a no-brainer.
Mrs Hodgson
With the leave of the House, I wish to say what an excellent debate this has been. I thank the Members who have taken part: the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) in particular for his very moving speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel). We really have heard excellent and moving speeches. Most Members present were in Westminster Hall for the debate in May when together we called on the Government to look again at this issue. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), did listen. He assured us all when we were lobbying him on the way out that he had listened. He told us to watch this space, so it is really good that within six months we are back, that we are all in agreement that there are benefits to fortifying flour with folic acid, and that we are keen to have that happen as soon as possible.
As we have heard, charities such as Shine, from which I have received very detailed and helpful briefings, have been campaigning on this issue for decades, and I pay tribute to Lord Rooker, who has also shown great leadership on this matter over decades. Will the Minister say whether charities and campaigners will have an opportunity to be involved with and to engage in the consultation? How will they be able to do that? Many of them have not only first-hand experience of why fortification is needed, but the expertise that should be utilised during the consultation. My last question, I promise, is: will the Minister please tell the House, if the information is available, which Department is facilitating the consultation and who it will be led by?
After this issue has been on the table for two and a half decades, we all agree that it is now time for our flour to be fortified with folic acid. I look forward to hearing the Minister outline the timeframe in his closing speech.
Nigel Adams
With the leave of the House, I echo the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) in saying that we have had a fantastically well-informed debate. It is good to see the House coming together. I am sure that everyone will agree that the tone of the debate has been extremely welcome. We have heard Members’ views about the proposal to fortify flour with folic acid, and I thank all of them for their contributions and interventions. This will ensure that the consultation document reflects both the scientific evidence base and the very personal impacts of the consequences for families dealing with an NTD birth. What has been clear from the debate is that we must move forward on this issue as soon as possible.
On modelling, the Government will consider all current dietary habits of women of childbearing age to help to inform the impact of this proposed mandatory fortification of flour to ensure that we are reaching the desired outcome. All dietary patterns will be considered whether they be cultural, religious or just personal preference.
On safety, we will continue to listen to COT’s advice to ensure that a safe upper limit is not exceeded by proposed changes to the folate intake from fortified flour. I hear what the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) says, but we have a duty to listen to COT’s advice. On pre and post-conception advice, we will ensure that a clear public health message is provided so that young women can properly understand what this proposed fortification change means for them having a healthy pregnancy.
Let me refer to some of the contributions to the debate. I thank the hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) and for Redcar (Anna Turley) for their interventions, and also the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who spoke in such an informed way. I really need to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Pontypridd for his work as co-chair of the all-party group on folic fortification and for highlighting those individual cases that he referenced. In particular, there was that incredibly moving story of the young girl, Nicky, which must have touched everyone here. As a Department, we are incredibly grateful for all the work that he has done. He, like the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, was right to reference the work of Lord Rooker. We are extremely grateful for what he has done in this area and for his campaign on folic fortification.
The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) speaks eloquently and brilliantly on all issues in this House. It has been a great privilege to listen to his contributions over the past eight years, but particularly in this debate. To come to this Chamber and to speak on a personal level about his experiences must have been incredibly challenging, and the way in which he talked about his son, Andrew, was incredibly moving. Both he and the hon. Member for Pontypridd, as co-chairs of the all-party group, should be very proud of their work to get the Government to this stage. I am absolutely sure that Andrew would be incredibly proud of his father’s work.
The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) rightly highlighted the costs—the relatively small costs—involved in this area. That is a great reminder to the Government that this is an issue that is not particularly expensive to deal with. There are not that many flour mills around the country, as he said. I am very grateful to him for his contribution.
I turn now to the comments of my friend, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, whom I have had the great privilege of working with on various campaigns over the years in this place. She asked exactly when the consultation would be launched and how long it would last. I know that other Members will want to know that as well. We do not have an exact date, but it will be early in the new year. I can assure her that it will happen as soon as we have been able to finalise the impact assessments. There is no fixed time for such an important consultation, but we expect it to last around 12 weeks to ensure that everybody has had a chance to consider the matter and respond. She asked whether there was an expectation of when we would have the results. Well, we will consider the outcome of the consultation as soon as it closes. Again, I cannot give her an exact date today in the House, but I can assure Members that we are committed to no delay and to responding as quickly as possible on this very important matter.
The hon. Lady also asked whether the consultation would consider the fortification of flour, or whether it would just establish an upper limit. I can assure her that the consultation will consider whether the calls to fortify wheat flour will achieve the objective for pregnant women. COT is considering the safe upper levels as part of that and its conclusions will be reflected within the wider consultation. She asked which Department will be responsible for leading the consultation, and I can tell her that it will be the Department of Health and Social Care. She also asked about gluten-free flour and whether fortification will include just wheat flour, or other types of flour such as cornflour for those with coeliac disease. We will consider all food in the modelling to ensure that the policy reaches its objective. We will also discuss with industry the issue of foods that are currently voluntarily fortified, such as breakfast cereal.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked how charities such as Shine can support the Government in ensuring that the announced consultation progresses quickly. We are very grateful to Shine and other charities for their tireless promotion of this important issue. Until we know the outcome of the consultation, it is too soon to consider which legislative vehicle might be needed to give effect to any decision, but the consultation process will allow us to make a decision once we have that outcome.
We very much hope that the consultation will raise public awareness of the need to continue to take the recommended folic acid supplement before conception and up to the 12th week of pregnancy. That is vital, as we have heard, and I really hope that this message can be brought to the attention of women both now and in respect of any future change. I am confident that this public consultation will give a proper channel to allow everyone to make their feelings on this issue known. I am sure that everyone who has participated in the debate will very much look forward to its outcome.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered folic acid fortification.
Inclusive Transport Strategy
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the inclusive transport strategy.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce this important debate today on an issue that will affect us all at some point in our lives. As I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will know, about one in five people in the UK are disabled. We also have an ageing society, and, as people get older, they are more likely to experience a wide range of conditions such as mobility impairments, memory loss, or visual or hearing impairments. As a society, we are also increasingly recognising that not all disabilities are visible and that mental health conditions and cognitive impairments, as well as hearing loss and memory loss, can have just as profound an impact on people as physical disabilities.
Regardless of the nature of a person’s disability, they should have the same access to transport and opportunity to travel as everyone else—access to services that most of us take for granted day in, day out. Accessible transport helps to reduce social isolation and loneliness, as well as to create opportunities for disabled people to play a more active role in society. Disabled people are more than twice as likely to be unemployed as non-disabled people, and the Government have a manifesto commitment to get 1 million more disabled people into work by 2027. Disabled people might face many barriers to finding employment, but the ability simply to travel should not be one. Against this backdrop, I am proud to have been the Minister responsible for publishing the Government’s inclusive transport strategy in July. I thank the Department for Transport’s accessibility team for all their hard work; the sector, which we have worked with; and the disability groups, including the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, that helped and advised us.
The inclusive transport strategy followed an earlier consultation on a draft accessibility action plan that received over 1,000 responses. I thank the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)—I hope that I pronounced his constituency correctly—for the substantial work that he undertook while he was responsible for the accessibility action plan in the Department for Transport. The accessibility action plan was an extensive engagement programme and represented a number of disability groups, whose voices were taken on board.
Let me remind the House briefly of the main elements of the inclusive transport strategy. First, the word “inclusive” is important, as it signals that we are adopting a holistic approach, rather than simply focusing on the physical accessibility of our infrastructure. This is about much more than simply ensuring that stations have step-free access. It is about designing and implementing all our policies and operations in such a way that they genuinely work for everyone. That is what we mean by inclusive.
The strategy starts off by setting a vision, which is that the Government want disabled people to have the same access to transport as everyone else and to be able to travel confidently, easily and without extra cost. Its overall goal is to create a transport system that offers equal access for disabled people by 2030. We chose that date because it links to the UN sustainable development goals for that year, particularly the goal to provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all. We also took account of the fact that, with the best will in the world, although there is much that we can do quickly—and we will work at a pace—some of the ambitious changes that we want to make will just take time. Some of our infrastructure, for example, was built at a time when accessibility was not taken as seriously as it is today; in fact, it was not considered at all. I am thinking particularly of many of our smaller railway stations, including those in my own constituency, which do not have step-free access. Matters requiring new legislation will also inevitably take time.
Having set the vision and overall goal, the strategy then sets out a larger number of measures under five main themes, which I will briefly summarise. First, it says that we will do more to promote passenger rights and ensure that existing legislation is better enforced. That matters because one very strong message that emerged from the consultation was that, although lots of legislation is already in force, not everyone is always aware of it and it certainly is not always enforced. For example, I am sure that hon. Members have heard many stories of blind people being charged extra for taking guide dogs in taxis or of taxi drivers not stopping to pick them up at all. That sort of behaviour is unacceptable. It is also illegal, but that is not widely enough understood and it is not consistently enforced. That is why we will be launching a public awareness campaign next year, working with a wide range of disability partners to raise awareness of disabled passengers’ rights when using the transport system.
The second theme of this strategy is the need for better staff training. We are talking about not just frontline staff such as bus drivers, railway station staff and so on, but also back office staff and managers. Training has to be top down as well as bottom up. This is important because the attitudes of staff can make a huge difference to the journey experiences of disabled people. This can be what makes or breaks a journey and builds or damages the confidence of a disabled passenger.
I am committed to improving staff awareness across the transport sector. Next year, we will publish guidance to improve bus driver awareness training on disability issues. We will also develop a monitoring and enforcement framework for this training, which will include identifying a body to ensure compliance across the bus sector. In the rail sector, bidders in future franchise competitions will be required to commit to providing enhanced disability training for staff, covering a range of impairments, including less visible disabilities. We will also require bidders to commit to involving disabled people in the design and delivery of that training. Involving disabled people directly in the provision of training is essential. It will help to ensure that transport staff fully understand the diversity of disability and the importance of providing good customer service, also enabling them to take some responsibility for the passenger not just on their part of the railway or the station, but for the onward journey.
The strategy’s third theme is a need for better information. Having the right information in an accessible format is an essential part of making it easier for people to travel. Of course, this benefits not just disabled people, but everyone else. By accessible information, I mean everything from providing audiovisual information on buses to including clear and simple signage in places such as railway stations that works for people with difficulties with communication, understanding or memory. Audiovisual information on buses is another tool that can make all the difference to someone’s experience of a journey. The Department is taking forward the necessary legislation to ensure that this is rolled out across all bus services. We are providing £2 million of funding to help speed this up and make it more affordable, particularly for small companies.
Accessible information is not only about audiovisual information. Improvements to real-time information can also make a difference to someone’s confidence to travel. Real-time information can alert people to changes on their journey or enable them to update their assistance requirements. That is why, as part of the strategy, we are supporting the Rail Delivery Group as it trials a new Passenger Assist application. This application will, for the first time, enable disabled passengers to book and change their assistance requirements digitally and receive updates on their journey in real time. I am challenging the Rail Delivery Group to present a mobile system—preferably an app—that will reduce the amount of time it takes to pre-book a journey, making it as easy as possible for disabled people.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Anything that improves the quality of disabled people’s experience of passenger assistance is very valuable, but should not the goal be to turn up and go—for someone with a disability to be able to use public transport in just the same way as you or I, without having to make a pre-planned journey? They should simply be able to use the facilities because they are accessible to everyone.
Ms Ghani
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, who is an expert in this area, as she chairs the Select Committee on Transport. The goal is that every passenger, regardless of their disability, can turn up and go—just as abled-bodied people can—but we have to accept that, in some circumstances, some bookings might need to happen in advance, especially when the journeys involve a variety of transport such as buses, taxis and other sorts of mobility. We hope that Passenger Assist can enable those journeys to be dealt with from start to finish, but of course the aim is for people to be able to turn up and go. More readily available information will benefit us all, including those with disabilities and those requiring physical assistance. We also want to ensure that we are covering other less visible disabilities such as autism and hearing loss.
The fourth theme in the strategy is about ensuring that our infrastructure is genuinely accessible to all. By infrastructure, I mean not only the public realm—stations, bus stations or streets—but also our trains, buses, taxis, boats and planes. The strategy included some significant new commitments under this theme. First, it confirmed that the Government would provide up to £300 million of funding over the period to 2024 to improve the accessibility of our rail network under the Access for All programme. This is an area of considerable interest for many hon. Members, and it was the subject of a Westminster Hall debate earlier this month. I have also written to all hon. Members to explain how the funding works and what needs to be done if they would like a station to be included in the programme.
Secondly, the strategy included the announcement that the Government would ask local authorities to pause any shared-space schemes that they are considering. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for the work that she and the Women and Equalities Committee, which she chairs, have done to review disability and the built environment, particularly for its recommendation with regard to shared-space schemes. The Committee’s recommendations and the feedback provided by many stakeholder groups informed our decision.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Minister has touched on the really important issue of shared spaces. I am pleased to see that the strategy calls for a halt to any further new shared-space developments, but there is a problem with existing shared spaces. Can she confirm whether there will be funding for local authorities to make those shared spaces accessible and not no-go areas for blind and partially sighted people?
Ms Ghani
This is a very important issue on which I gave evidence to the Committee just a few weeks ago. People’s interpretations of shared spaces are varied. There is no agreement, even within the community that lobbies for people with visual health problems, on what the minimum size of a pavement should be. That is why we will undertake a consultation with Transport Scotland to get some data on what works and what definitely does not work so that we can update our guidance by the end of next year.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
We, too, have a problem with shared spaces, particularly outside a local primary school. Will the Minister ensure that the needs not only of people with disabilities but of smaller and older people in our communities are included in the consultation so that all voices can be heard? Many of us are very worried about these shared-space ideas.
Ms Ghani
That is an incredibly valuable point. When talking about shared spaces, we may think about those who are using wheelchairs or those with visual health problems, but not about mums or parents with buggies, let alone older people. That is why the interpretation of shared spaces is so varied. There is some valid concern that when shared spaces are imposed in their totality, when there is absolutely no infrastructure in place, the situation can become incredibly complicated. We all have anecdotal evidence of where it is or is not working, but we absolutely need to collect the data so that we can ensure that the guidance is the best that it can be.
As I mentioned, we will work with Transport Scotland to take on board all the feedback. We are working with our stakeholder groups to make sure that we have a much more informed decision on shared spaces, particularly with regard to controlled crossings and kerbs, and dealing with people with a variety of disabilities. It is only right that towns should be designed in a way that works for all, and the Government are determined to work with local authorities to ensure that this happens.
I have written a letter jointly with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing to clarify the approach that should be taken to shared-space schemes. The letter makes it clear that the pause applies to schemes with relatively large amounts of pedestrian and vehicular movement such as high streets and town centres, but does not apply to streets within new residential areas or the redesign of existing residential streets with very low levels of traffic. Whether to improve individual schemes is a matter for local authorities, which need to ensure that they are compliant with their duties under the Equality Act 2010, but we hope that common sense will prevail before the updated guidance is issued.
The strategy includes a commitment that the Department will provide £2 million of funding to enable more Changing Places toilet facilities to be installed at our motorway service areas. Having access to these facilities can be genuinely life-changing for some families and allow them to make journeys that would otherwise have been impossible. We will shortly announce further details on how we intend to allocate this funding, and we will be working in partnership with Muscular Dystrophy UK. This should allow the majority of motorway service stations across the country to have Changing Places toilets by the early 2020s, compared with fewer than a fifth today.
The Department announced shortly after the publication of the strategy that it would extend the eligibility criteria for the blue badge scheme. The new criteria will extend eligibility to people who cannot undertake a journey without a risk of serious harm to their health or safety, or that of any other person such as young children with autism who cannot undertake a journey without it causing them very considerable psychological distress, or who have very considerable difficulty when walking. This is another step forward in ensuring that people with less visible disabilities get the support that they need to live independently. It was widely welcomed, including by the National Autistic Society, which said that it was
“thrilled that the Department had listened to the concerns of autistic people and their families”
and that the announcement would
“make a massive difference to the lives of many of the 600,000 autistic people in England, and their families.”
The fifth and final theme in the strategy is the importance of making sure that our future transport systems work for everyone. Transport is changing, and the technologies and services we are using are also changing rapidly. Many of these changes will offer wonderful opportunities for disabled and older people. Autonomous vehicles, for example, could mean that those who would not otherwise be able to drive, including perhaps those with visual impairment, could do so for the first time.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
In Birmingham, people are very excited about the 2022 Commonwealth games, and the Government recently announced £170 million to improve transport there. Does the Minister anticipate that that will ensure that the games are completely accessible to people of all abilities?
Ms Ghani
That is a very valid point. I assume that when my hon. Friend mentions the games being accessible to people of all abilities, he does not mean the contenders but the people who are going along to visit the great city of Birmingham. That should be the ambition—absolutely. Our desire is to make sure that our services are fully accessible, and any new funding recognises that as well. New technologies should be designed, from the outset, in such a way that disabled and older people can use them.
The strategy includes a commitment that the Government will publish a monitoring and evaluation framework explaining how we will measure the impact that it is having. That is really important. It is essential that we track the progress that is being made towards our goal of creating a transport system that offers equal access for disabled people. The Department will publish the detailed monitoring and evaluation framework in early 2019.
The strategy also includes a commitment that the Department will report regularly to Parliament on the delivery of commitments set out in it. This will allow hon. Members to hold us properly to account. Finally, it includes a commitment to create a new stakeholder advisory group to allow organisations representing disabled people to have more of an opportunity to shape the Department’s policies in the future. The announcements we have made in the strategy show that we have been listening to disabled people, and I am determined to ensure that we continue to do so as we deliver it.
The inclusive transport strategy marks a significant step forward in ensuring that our transport systems are genuinely accessible to all our users. This is a key part of making a society that works for us all. The strategy is ambitious, as it should be, and comprehensive, as it should be, and it sets out a clear direction of travel. The House will have an important role to play in holding the Government to account on the delivery of the strategy. I commend the inclusive transport strategy to the House and look forward to working with hon. Members as the Government deliver it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This debate is about the 13.9 million people in the UK who want to benefit from barrier-free travel, whether for work or leisure, whether to advance their opportunities or lifestyle, and to do so with choice and dignity, and without additional cost. No one chooses to be born with or to develop an impairment, and yet we know that disabled people are seriously economically and socially disadvantaged, frequently facing barriers throughout their lives, and facing discrimination even now in 2018—23 years after the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Inclusivity across our transport system can, should and must break this cycle and enable disabled passengers to access the things that the rest of us can enjoy. Labour fully comprehends this, because it is written in our DNA that when you create barriers, whether economically, socially or physically, you not only discriminate but limit the opportunities of others. We know how transport provides social connectivity to people who are isolated, can facilitate access to work or leisure, and can enhance independence and opportunity. To get this wrong is to limit the lives and hope of others. To get this wrong means that the state has disabled people by allowing barriers to continue.
Progress and spend over the past eight years has been too slow and too little. The inefficiencies within the system have yet again meant that disabled people were pushed to the back of the queue—and, I have to say, without enough realisation from Government or remorse from the industry.
Tragically, Governments and society have for too long built those barriers to disabled people, to exclude them and to remove the freedoms that so many of us take for granted. Today, I am sure we will hear many powerful examples of physical barriers across different modes of transport—planes, trains, buses and taxis—and for those wanting the opportunity to actively travel by cycling, walking or use of a mobility vehicle. We will hear about the infrastructure limitations and barriers that people face, and the choices and opportunities that they limit or deny people altogether.
I recall a woman in my constituency who is doubly incontinent, due to radiotherapy treatment for the disease she had—she did not choose to be so. She was denied universal credit owing to the complete failure of work capability assessments, which has left her in poverty, making it unaffordable for her to travel. Not having a toilet on a train, at a station or on a coach means that she cannot travel to see her mother. That is her goal. We must and should enable her to reach it.
I use that example to highlight the range of considerations that must be taken into account when we create an inclusive transport network. Disabled people are priced off our railways because they are far more economically disadvantaged than non-disabled people. Disabled people have to find an additional £570 a month in costs. Poverty is a major reason why people cannot travel, and because people cannot travel—for example, for work—they are economically disadvantaged. If Labour is about anything, it is about breaking this cycle, which we know has got far worse since this Government came to power. Wages have stagnated to below 2010 levels, and the most in need are denied the very social security to support their access requirements, keeping people in poverty or pushing them further into poverty.
Labour will, as is our mission, end this shameful and disgraceful approach to disabled people. In the sixth richest country in the world, we will not tolerate marginalising the most vulnerable people in our society and robbing them of the most basic rights that anyone should be able to have. Transport provides such an opportunity to turn people’s fortunes around. Whether someone faces a physical or sensory impairment, a mental health or neurodiversity challenge or a combination of those, whether they are injured, a parent with young children and buggies to navigate, old or frail, Labour will remove the barriers that stop them achieving their goals.
The Government’s inclusive transport strategy makes a good start, but much is missing, and I wait to hear how it will be fully funded and scheduled for implementation. Maybe Monday will be its judge, when the Chancellor gives his Budget statement. I know that the Minister has prioritised this strategy, but sadly her boss, the Secretary of State for Transport, has not shown such commitment.
More than £50 million of the Access for All funding planned for the current control period has been deferred, with half of all projects being postponed. Control period 5 funding has been slashed from £135 million, including a £32 million roll-over, to £87.1 million in 2012-13 prices, with the remainder of the original fund value now planned to be spent between 2020 and 2024. Labour is committed to restoring the £50 million that the Government have slashed from that budget.
Network Rail is inviting nominations for eligible stations, following the Government’s commitment of up to £300 million for Access for All in control period 6, but it is also looking for cash-strapped local authorities to contribute to bids and work in partnership—money that they do not have. Commitment is demonstrated by money. That is where the Government have been left wanting.
The Government’s inclusive transport strategy sets out five strands of work: raising awareness of passengers’ rights, staff training, improving information, improving infrastructure and using technology. Those are all welcome and all plausible, and long overdue. Addressing rights and responsibilities is good. Every penny wisely spent on infrastructure forms a crucial part of removing barriers for people who want equality, but sadly the strategy is not complete, and I therefore have to say that disappointment was felt on the Labour Benches. I know from talking to the amazing charities working on access issues across the transport sector that they share that disappointment.
I turn now to those who work across the network—something omitted from the Government’s strategy. Staff training, which we know can make a real difference, is rightly in the strategy, but who is working in the sector? If the transport sector does not make a radical change to who it employs, transport will fail to understand what is wrong. Of the 13.9 million disabled people, just 3.4 million, or 24%, work—what a wasted opportunity.
Every time I ask this question, I think of a constituent of mine who is autistic. He absolutely loves trains and wants to work on the railway. He has done courses and training under Government schemes, but at 30 he has only had three months of work sticking labels on jam pots. We are impoverished because his ambition has been denied. I set a challenge to the transport sector and the Minister today. Having tried to draw out statistics to no avail on how many disabled people work across the sector, which speaks volumes, my challenge is this: what are you doing to radically change the diversity of the workforce? No excuses and no prejudices—what are you doing?
If the workforce is inclusive, the industry and Government will not only grasp what they have to do to change, but economically, people who have been disabled will be able to get out of their homes and travel, and economically, the sector will benefit. If we have to enable staff, we have to enable everyone. Labour is committed to taking us on that journey, and we believe that the unions will be the facilitators of change. This is in Labour’s DNA. It is in our name. We are about transforming the world of work.
At this point, I want to recognise the incredible work that the Transport Salaried Staffs Association has done on neurodiversity and the transport sector. It stands out in the industry and has shown real leadership in recognising opportunity. I also have to extol the commitment and endurance of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers for its persistence in making the case that a second safety-critical person—a guard—must be on a train. It is right. If transport is to be inclusive, physical and structural changes have to occur, but we also need people to be there, providing the vital public service that enables, not disables, people.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is dealing with issues around the presence of staff. Does she agree that the presence of a member of staff on trains and at the station is not just important for disabled people—it may be vital for them—but is good for everyone, because it means that everyone who encounters a difficulty has someone they can go to for help and advice?
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know how vital our public servants working across the rail industry and the transport network are, at vital interchanges and stations, providing not only signage and support for individuals but the holistic customer service that the public rightly expect.
Cracked pavements are a major transportation barrier for people who trip over the cracks. People have lost their lives as a result of this. If we are going to talk about active travel, which we must, we have to ensure that councils such as my own—which has shamefully not addressed this—are equipped to address this issue. Parking on pavements is a cause of this and must be addressed. I was delighted when the Minister said that she was committed to addressing this, to help visually and physically disabled people avoid serious risk.
We need to build a cycle industry for everyone. EMPowered Cycles, which I went out with a few weeks ago on a ride, is inspirational in the way that it adapts bikes to enable anyone who wants to cycle to do so. Labour wants every child to have the chance to ride and to access cycling—and, for that matter, we will extend that enjoyment to all, taking away the multiple barriers faced by disabled people who want to cycle. Making cycling accessible for them will make it accessible for all.
The Bus Services Act 2017 rightly demanded that audio-visual equipment be installed across the network—thanks to Labour’s amendment. However, two years on, we are still waiting for the Government to lay the regulations. When will those regulations be laid? Will Brexit get in the way yet again, or will we see them laid? The bus companies say that they are not able to install the equipment because they do not know the scope of the requirements on them. I urge the Government to move on that issue.
To access a bus, however, people need a bus. The cuts to bus routes, with 199 routes cut or reduced last year alone, have cut the opportunities for disabled people at a time when 60% of disabled people live in homes without a car. That is why Labour is committed to reconnect people and communities in rural and urban areas through our bus plan. As for the fear this Government have sowed throughout the community transport sector—I thank all those involved in the sector for their service—they have not even had the decency to respond to the consultation from May, which is six months ago, leaving community transport in paralysis. Labour would take away that fear and support this vital lifeline to so many.
In the light of the independent report on taxi and private hire that was published in September, “Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing: recommendations for a safer and more robust system”, Labour welcomes the recommendations and has committed to reform the legislation guaranteeing national standards on safety and accessibility.
As for rail, we could dedicate a whole debate to station access. Stations absent of rumble strips on their platform edges and those with poor signage are failing the test. My trip to Biggleswade station highlighted how making such adjustments would mean that not only disabled people, but elderly people and mums and dads with pushchairs could use the train. Just 20% of stations are currently step-free. May I congratulate Liverpool’s metro Mayor, Steve Rotheram, and Councillor Liam Robinson, with their publicly owned trains on their publicly run network, on procuring an entire fleet of new trains that are step-free and accessible? It just goes to show what a publicly run service can achieve and why Labour will prioritise this issue—oh, and they have ensured that there will be guards on the trains.
I have to raise Govia Thameslink Railway’s disgraceful pronouncement earlier this year about dwell times at stations. That was another of its failings, and another reason that the Secretary of State should bring that route back under public ownership. It instructed staff:
“DO NOT attempt to place PRM”—
a person of reduced mobility—
“on train if there is a possibility of delaying the service”,
and that someone having a seizure should be moved
“from the train as quickly as possible”.
This is completely unacceptable. It boasted that such
“processes will help us deliver a 21st century railway”.
No they will not, and to discriminate so overtly shows just how unfit such franchise holders are.
Labour further understands that we need a real shift in engineering. I say to disabled people, “Become engineers”, and I say to the Government, “Make this happen”. When our engineers, designers and transport leaders have lived experience, then we can engineer in access for all. Others have to change, too. At a recent presentation, the Office of Rail and Road told us how it was content that one in five people were failed by Passenger Assist. That failure told us why we are not content with that organisation. Leadership has to be about ambition, and I was very surprised that the Minister said that her strategy would be delivered by 2030, which coincides with a date set by the UN, given how fast she could drive forward the strategy.
Leadership is about ambition, and that is why Labour believes that the public transport system can and should be transformed. With my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) at the helm—a man burning with ambition to create an economically, socially and physically inclusive railway—that will change lives, and that is what Labour Members will achieve when we come into government.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), but I have to say that I was surprised by the tone of some of her speech. I have never previously viewed inclusive transport as an overtly party political matter; lavatories and lifts matter to us all. This goes deeper than just lavatories and lifts, but they are important. As far as I am concerned, the inclusive transport strategy is something to be celebrated across the House.
I heard what the Minister said in her generous remarks about the great man, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). I should say that the codename for this report in my office is the Maynard report. I do not in any sense mean to denigrate the great work that I have no doubt the Minister will do in taking this forward. As she said, on this issue, she will be a fast driver for change. However, I think we should all pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, who has a personal interest and passion in this area, which he has had and has evidenced throughout his career. I know that he feels particularly strongly about the accessibility of our transport system. In fact, he feels equally strongly about accessibility and transport. In the early years of this strategy, he was able to marry his two passions together, and the report is a testament to some very hard work both in the Department and in the ministerial team.
For those with disabilities, not being able to access work, visit family and friends, or pop to the shops is isolating and can only make disabled people feel more lonely. The inclusive transport strategy shows that the Government are taking accessibility very seriously. I was particularly interested in the section on those with less visible disabilities, which are easy to ignore—I am sure that we all do that—on a daily basis. From railways to roads and from air to maritime travel, I have no doubt that the strategy will help to ensure that all forms of transport are made considerably more accessible to disabled people.
In Banbury, we have been talking a lot about our transport network as part of our bid to become an age-friendly town. A community-led initiative recently ran a survey of older people in the town, and transport came top of their list of priorities. We know that we have an ageing population across the nation, and that many people are living longer with more complex needs. Ensuring that they are able to access public transport is an important part of their independence. We have made really good progress: 98% of buses in England now comply with the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000, which is up from 28% in 2004. Audible and visual announcements are now commonplace, and the new £2 million fund available to provide further support to the roll-out of these announcements across the UK’s bus network is welcome.
Many of my constituents have also benefited from community transport initiatives. Two years ago, residents in Wendlebury were pleased to receive funding from the Department for Transport’s community minibus transport fund. The minibus is available for hire by all villagers and it provides a vital lifeline to those who find it difficult to get around. The volunteer community connect transport scheme is run by my constituent, Keith Davies, through the Banbury citizens advice bureau. He and his fellow drivers work with the Royal Voluntary Service to help the elderly disabled to get to a GP or hospital appointment, pop to the supermarket and meet friends or visit family in town. Its work is really valued by our community, and it is right that it should be celebrated.
Local councillors have also been working extremely hard to reinstate community bus schemes that had gone out of service. In Banbury, I particularly want to celebrate Councillor Kieron Mallon, who has helped to reinstate the B1 Easington route via Kidlington Assisted Transport. Three other bus routes have been piloted—the B7a and 7b in Grimsbury and Poets Corner and the B8 in Hardwick—and I am hopeful that they will become regular routes. We know that outside the inclusive transport strategy the Department is currently looking at the use of section 19 and 22 permits by some community transport operators. It is important that any action taken is proportionate and does not put any of these schemes at risk. We must continue to be proud of the support and help that the Government have given to community transport services.
I am sure that, like me, many colleagues here this afternoon will have received lots of emails from constituents about pavement parking. Guide Dogs has run an effective campaign. We know that cars parked on pavements and other street obstructions can be problematic for people in wheelchairs, the partially sighted, guide dog owners and indeed people with buggies, whom the Minister mentioned earlier. It is welcome news that the strategy recognises these issues and that the Department will carry out a wider review of pavement parking laws.
Extending the blue badge scheme will also make a genuine difference to those with hidden disabilities. The scheme has worked well, but I have long campaigned for temporary blue badges for those who have had an operation or broken a leg, for example. I have talked to the Minister about that before, and no doubt I will again. This great scheme could be more flexible, but in general it is to be celebrated.
I also welcome the strategy’s commitment to fund Changing Places lavatories at motorway service stations in England. In Banbury, we know how important these facilities are, even though we do not yet have one. Cherwell District Council has been exploring potential sites for a Changing Places facility over the last few months, and I really hope that we will be able to build one soon and that disabled people will not have to hang on much longer. Ensuring that adults with acute learning and physical disabilities have fully accessible toilets is really important. The £2 million fund to install facilities in motorway service stations will help to ensure that disabled people and their families can travel more comfortably and without worry.
There are many aspects of the strategy that I have not been able to touch on today but which are also extremely welcome to my constituents. I congratulate the Department on taking decisive action to open up our transport network so that it is accessible for all. Everyone deserves the right to travel confidently, easily and without extra cost and worry.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I am delighted to speak in the debate, although the opportunity has come around rather sooner than I expected, so I am afraid that my speech is in the form of a large pile of Post-it notes. I apologise if it is a little disjointed. I welcome the Department’s work on an inclusive—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I made a mistake. I should have called the Scottish National party spokesperson. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to speak now?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who is a valued member of the Transport Committee, for allowing me to continue.
I very much welcome the Department’s work on an inclusive transport strategy and the opportunity to debate these issues. We know that disabled people are often reliant on public transport, and much of my speech will focus on that. As the Minister said, disabled people face difficulties due to the accessibility of transport, its cost and attitudes, and as I have said already, many measures that can make public transport more accessible for people with a disability also make it more accessible for everyone. Audio-visual announcements on buses, which are standard in London and, I am pleased to say, available on almost all buses in my city of Nottingham, not only are essential for someone who is blind or visually impaired, but help everybody using the bus, particularly if they are visitors from out of town or going on an unfamiliar route. If people can hear what the next stop is, it helps everyone. We look forward to having visual announcements on all trains in the future. As people get older, they often experience greater difficulties with mobility and hearing, and with an aging population, addressing such issues becomes ever more pressing.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) talked about pavement parking. Guide Dogs has done important work to raise the profile of that issue and the problem it poses to many people with a disability, so I hope that the Minister will tell us when we can expect to see some change. Pavement parking was the subject of a private Member’s Bill some time ago, when the Government promised to act, so I would be grateful if she could give us a timescale. I also welcome the work around shared spaces, which is another issue that Guide Dogs and other organisations regularly raise on behalf of people with visual impairments.
Eddie Hughes
Does the hon. Lady also welcome the Government’s pledge to get 1 million more disabled people into work by 2027, and does she think that the inclusive transport strategy will help to achieve that?
Lilian Greenwood
Of course I welcome the commitment to getting more disabled people into work, but my concern is whether the Government are doing enough on a range of issues so that people have the support that they need to get back into work. Perhaps that is an issue for another day, but the availability of accessible and affordable transport certainly plays a key role in ensuring that disabled people can access the workplace.
Funding for these measures is really important, but sadly there is a problem in my city at the moment. In September, Nottingham City Council changed the rules for the concessionary pass for people with a disability. Until early September, disabled people could use their mobility pass before 9.30 am, which was a huge assistance not only to disabled people in work, but to many who would be travelling to attend hospital and other medical appointments. As a result of the funding reductions that the council has suffered, it has had to go back to the national system, which says that passes can be used only after 9.30 am. That enormously regrettable decision is having a significant impact on disabled people in my constituency, although I understand why the council made it. This is about the availability of resources as well as policy.
Another local issue—I wonder whether the Minister is aware of this at a national level, and whether it is a problem in other places—relates to payments for on-street parking through parking meters. Increasingly, meters that allow people to pay by cash are being replaced by services such as RingGo, which involve people paying for their parking by telephone or using their smartphone. I am concerned about the impact of that on older and disabled people, particularly those who are deaf or have a hearing impairment. Has the Minister considered that issue and asked local authorities that are implementing such changes whether they have properly considered the impact on disabled people?
I will come on to speak about a number of individual modes of transport, but people going on journeys do not think, “I’m going to take a bus journey and a rail trip, and then I’m going to walk.” People think about getting from their starting point—perhaps their home—to where they wish to go. We must ensure that there is joined-up thinking, because a disabled person needs to be confident that every leg of their journey will be reliable and accessible. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that there is the joined-up and integrated approach that a disabled person will need if they are to have the confidence to travel? Unfortunately, we know that many disabled people are stopped from travelling because they do not have that confidence.
A report published in April 2017 by the Equality and Human Rights Commission stated that transport options for disabled people are “very limited” because of access and expense, and that disabled people report feeling “trapped” by high costs and limited options. The report also refers to
“attitudinal or psychological barriers that prevent or discourage disabled people from using transport services. This could involve the behaviour and attitudes of some transport staff or concerns that people have about using transport, such as fear of crime, abuse or attack”.
Of course, those are not just issues for disabled people, as they often affect young travellers or women travelling late at night. There are many common issues that we can look to address.
Community transport has already been mentioned, and the Transport Committee’s first report of this Session considered the Government’s proposals on changing the regulations on section 19 and 22 permits. There is considerable concern among Members on both sides of the House about the potential impact of the Government’s changes. Indeed, it is not just a potential impact, because the Government’s actions in July 2017—that was before the Minister took responsibility for community transport, which is a recent development—have already started to have an impact on community transport operators. I wrote to the Minister only a couple of weeks ago to express concern about the actions of some local authorities, traffic commissioners and police. That is happening even though the response to the consultation has not been published and the Government have not issued new guidance.
When the Committee took evidence as part of our inquiry, we heard from hundreds of individual disabled people and the organisations that represent them. We were struck by how many people referred to community transport as a “lifeline”. I am sure that the Minister has listened to concerns raised across the House. I hope that she will take them into account when she publishes her response to the consultation and act to protect community transport, which is vital for so many disabled people.
I know the Minister is passionate about buses and I have been heartened by our discussions so far, but there are a number of issues to raise. One concern that has been highlighted by the Campaign For Better Transport since 2010 is the loss of supported bus services, which in part relates to the reduction in funding for local authority services. Thousands of services have been cut or scrapped altogether as result of those changes, and the impact of that on people who depend on buses—they might be people on low incomes, older people, or of course disabled people—is a great concern. Ahead of the Budget, I hope that the Minister has had conversations with the Chancellor and put in a plea for appropriate funding for transport, and particularly for buses, which are so important to communities up and down the country. Those cuts have had a particular impact on rural communities and more isolated locations.
The curtailing of services can have a particular impact on disabled people. Last week, the Transport Committee held an outreach event in Leicester where we talked to bus users. One woman, who had been a driver in the past but due to having had a stroke was now a bus user, described how on one of her local services the number of stops had been reduced. Where the bus had previously stopped at the hospital, it now stopped at the bottom of the hill before it reached the hospital, leaving her with a difficult journey uphill to access a very important local facility. That is just one example of how services are sometimes curtailed in a way that has a disproportionate impact on disabled people.
Reference has been made to the importance of wheelchair spaces on buses. Everyone is of course aware of the potential clash between buggies and wheelchair users for that space. I pay tribute to Doug Paulley, who took this issue on and confirmed that disabled people should have access to them. I welcome the Government’s commitment to act, but I would like more clarity on when it will happen. We raised this issue during the passage of the Bus Services Act 2017 about 18 months ago, so it would be helpful to understand when further action will be taken. We do not want to see a clash between the needs of wheelchair users and those with large amounts of luggage or prams and buggies. We want to ensure that buses are accessible for everyone. There are some really good examples of bus design. Nottingham City Transport, in my constituency, has large banks of tip-up seats that allow space for two wheelchairs or a large number of parents with children in buggies, so it can be done. We need to ask some bus operators why they are not acting more quickly.
The same is also true for audiovisual announcements, which I have already mentioned. Another shocking example from our visit to Leicester last week was told to me by a young woman. Her friend, who is visually impaired, had got on a route that normally has audio announcements, even though it is not standard in that city. She noticed that there were no audio announcements, so she spoke to the driver who said, “Oh yes, we’ve turned them off because I find them annoying.” That is really shocking, so what action will be taken to ensure that that cannot happen?
Finally on buses, the Minister knows that I wrote to her about the importance of transport to hospital. Many of those who use an older person’s concessionary bus pass use it to travel to hospital and medical appointments. I was really glad that, after I wrote to the Minister—alongside Age UK, which has done excellent work on this in its report, “Painful Journeys”—it appeared in the inclusive transport strategy. I just want clarification on some of the action that was promised. Has transport to hospital been raised at the disabled people and society cross-ministerial working group mentioned in the strategy? Is cross-departmental work currently under way? If so, what specifically is happening? What are the Minister’s plans for ensuring that the commitments in the strategy on transport to hospital actually happen? Will they definitely be built into the evaluation framework? I am sure that she will address those issues when she sums up later.
Trains often dominate our discussions. I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am hoping we have plenty of time for this debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I am sure you will not want to take more time than the Minister.
Lilian Greenwood
I will try to push on, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have such a long list of issues to raise.
On trains and the disabled people’s protection policy, we know that the Office of Rail and Road was looking at undertaking a review of the guidance. It stated that a consultation on draft revised guidance was planned for September this year and that completed guidance would be published by the end of the year. Will the Minister update us on what she knows about that work, because it was not published in September as planned?
On step-free access, I welcome the progress that has been made, but 202 stations out of 2,565 is simply not enough. What is the goal on that? Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether, when we talk about step-free access at 202 stations, that is from the train to the street or just from the platform to the street, because that makes a big difference. Step-free access is important, but I appreciate that it can be costly to implement. There are some much cheaper and simpler measures that can make a difference. Although it will not solve the problem of step-free access, one such measure is seating at stations. We have a “Take a Seat” policy across the city of Nottingham, and I have noticed that there is nowhere for people to sit down and have a rest at some stations. I noticed last week that people can sit down and have a rest at Euston station, but if they do, they cannot see which platform their train will be on. That leaves disabled people without very much time to get to their trains. Perhaps the Minister will raise that with train operators.
Another question is the accessibility of the rolling stock—the trains—for persons of reduced mobility. Currently, 78% of the rolling stock on our network meets modern access standards. That figure should be 100% by 1 January 2020. What assurance can the Minister give us that that will be the case?
I have already touched on staffing issues on trains and at stations. I was really pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mention the importance of attitudes to invisible disabilities. The TSSA’s work on neurodiversity is particularly significant. I am sure the Minister shares my concern about the report in The Guardian on Wednesday of the mum of a 17-year-old son who was humiliated by Great Western staff, who accused her of trying it on when she asked if she could take an earlier train because her son was overwhelmed by the station environment. Train operators need to do more to train their staff properly so that such circumstances do not arise.
The Minister alluded to the issue of taxi drivers who ignore customers in wheelchairs or try to charge customers more if they have assistance dogs.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we must all be mindful of the needs of the visually impaired? A constituent of mine recently reported to me the difficulties he had with crossing roads safely after his guide dog surprisingly and unfortunately died. He relayed to me the challenges caused by cars that were badly parked too close together or illegally on pedestrian crossings.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that important issue about the experience that disabled people, including those with sensory impairments, face when they are out and about on our roads. In addition, some crossings do not allow enough time for people to get across the road. I am sure that the Minister has heard and will consider what my hon. Friend has said and that she will make sure that it is reflected in her final strategy.
I want to raise a couple more issues, one of which is about aviation. Many of us will have seen reports in the media of the experience of BBC journalist Frank Gardner on planes. At the moment, it is not possible to take a wheelchair on to a plane. Has the Minister looked into that, and when will it be addressed? Not entirely dissimilar is the question of taking mobility scooters on public transport. In Nottingham, many users of mobility scooters welcome the tram, because they can take their mobility scooter on to it. They do not need any assistance, because there is level-floor access; it is great. In some cities, albeit a small number, it is not possible to take mobility scooters on to the tram network. Three rail companies—Grand Central, Gatwick Express and Northern—have a total ban on mobility scooters. What discussions has the Minister had with them about improving the situation for those who rely on mobility scooters?
I want to mention a problem that sometimes arises for passengers on the railway who use “turn up and go”. I understand there can be a lack of communication between the originating station and the destination station. Will the Minister tell me what she is doing to ensure that train operators are addressing that issue, to ensure that there is good communication between stations?
My final plea is for the Minister to do something about fares. As she will know, fares on public transport have been rising faster than wages since 2010. That clearly has a disproportionate impact on disabled people who rely on public transport and many of whom have lower incomes, particularly those who have suffered changes in their disability benefits. Will the Minister ensure that funds are made available to hold down the cost of public transport so that more people can have access to it, either because they need to or because they want to? We know that it has many benefits in helping us to tackle congestion and poor air quality.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate on behalf of the Scottish National party, and also to follow the all-encompassing speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood).
It goes without saying that, although transport is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, there is certainly scope for us to discuss areas of best practice. I note, for example, that the inclusive transport strategy recognises that the UK Government are monitoring policy developments on the part of the Scottish Government, and I believe that it is sensible to proceed on that basis.
I am sure Members on both sides of the House agree that when we discuss this issue, the views of disabled transport users must be first and foremost in our minds. Whenever possible, it must be the experiences of disabled people that shape the policy. Our role is to try to understand the many practical difficulties that disabled people experience in accessing transport, such as the lack of wheelchair-friendly taxis, poor dropped kerbs leading to bus stops, and long-outdated train stations that do not cater for those who need extra assistance.
Obviously we all recognise that disabled people should not have to feel socially isolated or be treated like second-class citizens, and it behoves policy makers, north and south of the border, to ensure that our various forms of transport are genuinely accessible. Indeed, progress has been made as we move towards the point at which all buses, coaches and trains must be accessible to disabled people. In Scotland the percentage of buses that are accessible or have low floors increased from 33% in 2004-05 to 96% in 2015-16, and figures published in 2017 show that 47% of taxis in Scotland were wheelchair-accessible.
That progress, however, has been too slow for too long. The transport section of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 included a commitment that all licensed taxis would be wheelchair-accessible by 2012. The taxi trade had 17 years in which to deliver that goal with the encouragement of Governments, but it did not happen. As time has passed, successive UK Governments have allowed timescales to slip and transport providers to relax rules contained in the Disability Discrimination Act.
I have been greatly educated on this subject by one of my own constituents, Councillor Jim MacLeod from Port Glasgow. Jim has been a tireless champion of disability rights. Over many decades he has learned, through personal experience and from helping others, just how incremental progress has been. In his expert view, the most pressing issues facing disabled people are cars blocking access to pavements and dropped kerbs; a lack of wheelchair-accessible taxis; buses having only one wheelchair space, which is often taken up by prams; no announcements on buses to let blind people know where the stops are; a lack of accessible train stations or railway staff to assist disabled people getting on and off trains; and a range of continuing issues relating to disabled people boarding planes. Other Members have raised all those issues today, so it is clear that they exist throughout the United Kingdom.
When reading background media coverage relating to this subject, I was struck by one particular story from Edinburgh. It concerned a wheelchair user who said that she had felt “embarrassed and humiliated” when a bus driver refused to fold away an empty buggy, which would have allowed her to enter the bus. Another passenger then shouted at the woman, blaming her for the bus being held up. The passenger continued to snigger and demean the woman, which made her feel that
“some people are valued more than others.”
In 2018 it is truly shocking that anyone, particularly a wheelchair user, is made to feel like that for something as simple as entering a bus. This is not an isolated incident: it is alarming to note that disability hate crime in England, Wales and Scotland has risen dramatically in the last year. Further, research by disability charity Scope found that one in four disabled people have been prevented from using public transport by other people’s attitudes. In the context of the inclusive transport strategy I therefore welcome the UK Government’s commitment to launching a public awareness campaign in England and Wales to promote ways in which members of the public can positively interact with disabled people to encourage a supportive travelling experience.
In Scotland, too, we have learned the lessons of the “letters from Scotland” campaign in an effort to highlight hate crime and to send a message of solidarity and support to those on the receiving end of such abuse. Such campaigns are vitally important because there is no point in having the latest accessible buses or newest technology only for disabled people to be put off traveling because of intolerance from passengers or transport staff. If we are serious about tackling the disability employment gap, we must be moving towards the point where disabled people accessing transport is just an everyday, unremarkable, mundane occurrence. Sadly we are not at that point yet.
Undoubtedly, new technologies will play a part in making transport more accessible, and might even revolutionise how disabled people are able to move around the community. I recently met with BMW who showed me some of their work in the field of automated cars. Their vision is impressive, but emergent technologies like fully automated vehicles are still a long-term aspiration.
In that regard, it is important that we are realistic about how disabled people use technology. Polling by Scope found that disabled people are far more likely to use “mainstream” technology than “specialised” assistive technologies. In a sample of 2,000 disabled people, 78% said that mobile technology was helpful or very helpful in helping them live more independently. Some 65% on the other hand indicated that they either did not use assistive technology or did not find it helpful. I hope digital companies therefore realise the excellent market potential in developing technologies that can assist disabled people in travelling. In this instance, both the developer and the consumer have much to gain from the implementation of new technologies.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
On 6 June I had the opportunity through an Adjournment debate to raise the issues brought to me by my constituents Margaret Ambaras and Laurel Holleran, who are blind and partially sighted. They and their colleagues took me on a blindfolded walk which allowed me to experience the difficulties they have to face. In that debate I highlighted to the Minister, who is also responding to this debate, a number of issues that they raised with me, some of which have again been referred to today. Those issues are pavement parking and shared spaces and issues to do with taxis, accessible information on buses and safety in travelling.
In that debate, I was able to explain the problems they were having and asked the Minister some specific questions about pavement parking and guidance on shared spaces. I am very disappointed therefore that pavement parking gets barely a mention in the inclusive transport strategy and action on it is again put on hold.
Liz Twist
The Minister shakes her head, and I will be glad to hear her comments on that. Action on pavement parking is still being considered as it has been for some time. What was highlighted in that earlier debate was a need for a policy not just in London, but across the whole of the UK, to allow for pavement parking to be banned and to be the exception rather than the rule. My constituents Laurel and Margaret, along with Guide Dogs and other organisations, will be very disappointed that that issue has not been tackled, because it is very important for them. It really affects their ability to get around and to make the whole journey by walking from, for example, where they live to the railway station, the bus stop or other locations. It is really sad that we have missed this opportunity to do something very immediate to resolve that problem. As the Minister will recall, local authorities are keen to have guidance on this issue so that they can tackle it.
The issue of shared spaces is considered in the inclusive transport strategy, and it is good that the Government have put a pause on them, but as others have said, there is no clear guidance for local authorities on retrofitting shared spaces to ensure that they are safer for people with disabilities of all kinds, particularly those who are blind or partially sighted. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister exactly what is going to happen now. What are we going to do? Are we going to ban shared spaces, as many people with these problems would like to see, or will there be guidance on exactly how to make the existing ones safer? Looking to the future, how are we going to ensure that people with disabilities are able to cope with them? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that.
In the debate, I also asked the Minister whether the Department would issue statutory guidance to licensing authorities on disability awareness training. It is clear from my constituents’ experiences that such guidance has not always been available. I note that there is a reference in the strategy to providing such guidance, and that a working party is looking at the issue, but as I understand it, the Government have not responded to the working group’s report on this aspect. That is disappointing as well, and I wonder whether the Minister could update us on when we are likely to get a response on that issue.
I also asked the Minister about accessible information on buses. This is already provided in some places, but as others have said, it is sometimes switched off and it sometimes just does not work. That is something that really needs to be tackled, but I note from the report that it has been deferred to the end of the year for further guidance to be issued. Will she also comment on that?
The Minister was kind enough to write to me after the debate about the issue of guards on trains. This has already been referred to many times this afternoon, because many people with disabilities are really concerned that there will no longer be guards on trains. They have relied on those guards to help them in the past, and their presence is a key part of ensuring that people with disabilities feel safe on trains. The Government have to reconsider their position on this, because it is so important to so many people. Again, this is a missed chance.
I know that the Minister understands the importance of some of these issues because, as she said in my Adjournment debate, she herself has had experience of them within her family. However, I am really sorry to see that pavement parking has been sidelined. Other issues that have been mentioned today include the importance of bus services to people with disabilities. My constituents Margaret and Laurel have told me about the importance of bus services to them, so it is really disappointing to see the number of bus services being reduced nationally. We are seeing bus services disappearing in my own area, where funds are stretched, and I know that that is happening across the country.
Another issue that we talked about in that debate was accessibility on trains. As other Members have said, this is not just about step-free access in stations; it is also about being able to get on a train. In my case, when I get the train in Newcastle, I have a struggle to get on it because there is a huge gap. What steps are being taken to ensure that there is funding to make our stations and our trains properly accessible?
At this point, I should refer to my constituent Catherine Nichols, a young woman with a number of disabilities, some of which are visual and some of which relate to her mobility. Catherine never ceases to remind me of how important it is that people like her and those with other disabilities are able to get on a train and that trains are suitable for them to use safely. We need to pick up on such issues, but it seems that money will be a real restriction on any improvements, but I want accessibility to be improved, so money is necessary, and other Members have asked the Minister to raise that with the Chancellor.
We cannot ignore the issue of pavement parking, as raised by Guide Dogs and my constituents, any further. The matter has been put off and put off, but it needs resolving because it is hampering people’s ability to get where they need to be and to use accessible transport. The issue needs to come to the top of the pile and be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Rachael Maskell
As expected, we have had an insightful and thoughtful debate about how we must absolutely remove the barriers that have been created across the transport system, which have disabled 14 million people across the UK who experience some form of impairment. I thank all hon. Members for highlighting their concerns, their cares and their local examples. Each case tells a story of how communities have been denied access to transport and, therefore, to the opportunities enjoyed by so many of us.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) extolled the transport system in Oxfordshire, but it is alarming to learn of the level of cuts made by the Tory-run Oxfordshire County Council. The impact on the buses has been of such a scale as to garner national media attention, showing that the Government’s austerity plan is still very much alive.
As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) gave us a tour de force as she took us around the different modes of transport in her constituency, eloquently setting out what needs to be done and highlighting Nottingham City Council’s dedication to increasing disabled people’s access to transport. Like her, I regret the fact that the cuts that her council has faced mean that it is not able to offer disabled people the ability to use their passes at peak times. I hope that the Chancellor will give her some hope on Monday. The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith)—I was sorry to hear about the loss of his constituent’s dog—highlighted how important it is that road users and planners ensure that vehicle parking does not create more barriers.
The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) highlighted the progress made by the Scottish Government, who are moving far faster on initiatives than the UK Government. He mentioned how his constituent Jim MacLeod had alerted him to the barriers that disabled people face. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) again spoke about her experience as her constituents Laurel and Margaret took her on a tour of her constituency to highlight the barriers that visually impaired people face. She also spoke of the essential role of guards on trains. Following all those contributions, there is clearly much to be done.
Communication was a theme in today’s debate. Whether in person, by providing information or through the latest technology, it is important that we are able to communicate with disabled people to enhance their experience of the transport system. We have heard about the different modes of transport that are available, but if we bring modes of transport together at an interchange, we must ensure that those choices are available to everyone, including disabled people. It is vital that we get the maps and apps right and that we extend the opportunity to access transport to everyone. The challenge before us today is to take advantage of all those opportunities and technologies through the work of our dedicated transport workers.
Labour sees transport interchanges as a real opportunity. We have heard how people can be disadvantaged by stations not being accessible, and therefore we need to bring about redress. The historical franchises should employ disabled people and, of course, under our national railway plan we would not have to wait years until franchises run out. We could make those changes and make a difference to disabled people.
We have heard about the impact of different environments, about people who struggle in crowded environments and perhaps require additional support. I was heartened when I met London North Eastern Railway a week ago, as it now employs an access and inclusion manager, Charlie Woodhead. I look forward to working with him, and it shows what can be done by a publicly owned railway service. I hope others will follow that example.
Making transport accessible means that more people can travel. Having more people travelling on public transport is better for our environment, and it is better for everyone economically, for the individual traveller and for the Treasury.
Of course everyone should have the opportunity to book in advance, and it is a positive advance if systems can retain information about a traveller’s support needs. However, everyone must also have the opportunity to turn up and go, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South said. That is clearly where transport is failing, and I trust that, significantly, the strategy will mean that everyone can have equality of access to our transport system.
As I said in my opening speech, 14 million people depend on the Government getting this right. My hon. Friends and I have set out how planes, trains, ferries, buses, cycling, walking and other modes of transport can be accessible. My hon. Friends are determined to see barriers removed, lives transformed and opportunities unleashed for all those who experience barriers today, whether economically, socially or physically. A Labour Government will ensure that they have the opportunities they deserve.
Ms Ghani
With the leave of the House, I wish to thank the House for the opportunity to discuss this important inclusive transport strategy. The debate has been good natured, and both sides of the House clearly agree that the strategy is a positive and ambitious programme, but of course there is always more to do to help disabled people and older passengers to access our transport system.
I am pleased to note that this might be the first time an Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson has welcomed the Government’s work, and I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the House to deliver the inclusive transport strategy. We have also heard some powerful stories about how passengers have been undermined, have lost their confidence or have been made to feel incredibly small when all they were trying to do was undertake a journey. That is just not acceptable, and we hope the inclusive transport strategy will address that in some part, especially in addressing the level of training that has to be undertaken by so many people involved in our transport network.
Transport is an essential part of our society, especially through its ability to help us to access work and school, and to stay in contact with friends and family. Through those connections, transport reduces feelings of social isolation, anxiety and loneliness. Transport should be easily accessible, and it is essential to helping to build a stronger and fairer society and a stronger economy. I hope Members will agree that the inclusive transport strategy is bold and shows not only my commitment but the commitment of the Department for Transport to building a more inclusive transport system—a transport system that provides good customer service, that gives disabled people the confidence to use it and that provides information in a range of formats to support journey planning and unexpected changes along the route.
I now wish to discuss some of the valid contributions made by Members from across the House. First, let me deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), because she asked so many questions. It would be near impossible for me to answer all of them, so I hope she will allow me also to respond in writing. She made a request for further clarity on what the Government will be doing on wheelchair spaces. In my time at the Department, I have always been clear that a wheelchair access space is for wheelchairs, but I accept that further training is required for some people to empower them to ensure that they can deliver that advice and guidance when they undertake their day-to-day job.
An expert stakeholder group was established and has advised Ministers on a combination of amendments to legislation and guidance and in March we accepted those recommendations. We will also bring measures forward by the end of the year. Fundamentally, this involves much better training and understanding, in order to enable people to apply common sense.
The issue of community transport was raised, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis). I agree that community transport is vital, especially in the most rural constituencies; we have fantastic volunteers doing phenomenal work, be it with younger or older people, across the spread of community transport provision up and down the country. A consultation has indeed taken place and we are aiming to publish our response as soon as we can—I hope it will be in the next couple of months. It is vital to remember that clear guidance has been given by the Department to ensure that local authorities are not stopping taking contracts, and I am having as many conversations as I can to ensure that. Community transport is incredibly valuable and we need to make sure that any guidance we give lands appropriately; sometimes we may not fully calculate the language we use, but our motivations are to ensure that local community transport groups can continue to provide a service for the communities they wish to serve.
The hon. Members for Nottingham South and for York Central (Rachael Maskell) raised an important point about joined-up travelling, because people can set off on a journey only to find that things do not work out. They want to be able to ensure that their next mode of transport is available. Through the inclusive transport strategy, we are going to set up a transport leaders scheme that enables all the modes of transport to communicate with each other. One of my ambitions is for passengers to be fully up to date. Any piece of equipment, app or whatever this becomes has to be linked up. Whatever journey someone is taking and whoever is taking care of them, they should be able to communicate with the next person on that journey and with the person who may or may not be receiving them at the end of that journey. That is the challenge I have set the sector and that is what I am going to be working towards the sector delivering.
The hon. Member for Nottingham South also asked how often we discuss various modes of transport at the inter-ministerial group on disability and society, especially in respect of looking at community transport, and at transport to and from hospital and medical appointments. I assure her that I raise all these issues, including with the planning department that sits on the group, which discusses where bus stops are allocated, whether they are on the wrong side of the road for people who are getting off, whether they are near hospitals and so on. I also talk to the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that it fully understands how these services should be procured, taking into account the needs of passengers at all times.
The hon. Lady also asked for statistics on Access for All. We have allocated £300 million and we hope that we can do as much work as we can, as swiftly as we can. Figures to the end of 2017 suggest that more than £85 million has already been spent on Access for All projects, and we have £300 million in place now. All those projects that were deferred previously will now be assessed for the new Access for All funding.
The hon. Lady also referred to pavement parking, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury—[Interruption.] Forgive me, it was the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). The issue has been tackled by the Department, and one of our Ministers is gathering evidence on the effectiveness of the current pavement parking laws. We are considering changes to the law and listening carefully to concerns raised by campaigners. There is a commitment to ensuring that we can put out the review by the end of the year. In all the decisions that we make, we have to make sure that we reflect everyone’s concerns and do not make fast decisions that might cause adverse reactions in local communities.
An important and valid point was made about parking meters that require people to use their phones, so I shall take that away and ensure that we pick up on it. We will see what we can do with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and other disability groups that we work with, and ask whether people not having an app, or being unable to use an app or to do whatever they need to do, is causing an issue with parking. We must make sure that parking is accessible for everybody, so I am grateful that that point was made and will make sure that it is tackled.
Let me respond to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Inverdale—
Ms Ghani
I am awful at reading and writing, aren’t I?
We have assigned £2 million to public awareness campaigns and we will ensure that we can tackle not only the sector that has to deliver the service, but the public. It is not right that we hear stories of people’s inappropriate behaviour, or of individuals—whether they are bus or train drivers—who are employed to deliver a service but just make really poor decisions. I hope that the inclusive transport strategy can deliver confidence among people who are disabled so that they can undertake journeys and are not deterred by one bad journey. We do not want to put anybody off, so I am really pleased that the debate was not negative at all and was about making sure that people can feel positive about leaving their home and undertaking journeys.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury started her speech by saying that lavatories and lifts are not celebrated enough. I am keen to hear how she will continue to celebrate them throughout her tenure as a Member of Parliament. She spoke about the wonderful community transport work that is being done in Wendlebury and the bus routes in her constituency. As I said, we will undertake a review of pavement parking. She spoke about the importance of the blue badge scheme going beyond what we accept as disabilities in the traditional sense and accepting lots of other disabilities, as well as about the importance of Changing Places facilities. Such facilities are something that we do not come across until we need them or become a carer for someone who does, but they are vital. We hope to have facilities in place in most service stations in the country. My ambition is for them to be in place in all service stations, but unfortunately ministerial ambitions and budgets have to sit side by side. With that programme of work, it is important that the decisions are not made within the Department; we are working with Muscular Dystrophy UK to make sure that the right decisions are made.
I cannot let the debate end without talking about our passion for buses and for doing what we can to make sure that bus patronage goes up. There are variations up and down the country. There are fantastic places, from Liverpool to Brighton, where bus patronage is up. That is mostly down to the services provided, with up-to-date information and journey times that are sort of guaranteed. People are able to use technology on buses, and there are concessionary fares or cheaper fares for younger people. It is really about understanding the customer base. We have around £1 billion for local authorities to support concessionary fares, whether for disabled people or older pass holders. I am always campaigning for more funding for buses. It is vital that we have one place, one direction and one strategy, so I am keen to work with my Department to put together an investment strategy that focuses on bus services today and tomorrow.
Hon. Members’ references to taxis and private hire vehicles ranged from the illegal behaviour of not allowing guide dogs into cabs to the question of how we raise standards. Reference was also made to the task and finish group, which did indeed produce its recommendations in the summer. I am in the process of putting together the Government’s response, but Members can rest assured that issues relating to what is already illegal are fully understood and that standards throughout the country will be good and not varied, as they are currently. There is not too long to wait for that.
Some comments were made about aviation. We all hear dreadful stories of wheelchairs being broken or not arriving on time, and of passengers not being dealt with. The Department has been working hard with not only the aviation sector, but the disability groups that we work with, take evidence from and consult. An aviation strategy consultation will be produced by the end of 2018.
Cracked pavements were also mentioned. I am surprised that my constituency was not mentioned, because this matter comes up quite a bit, even in Wealden. The Department has a substantial amount of funding for highways maintenance. I believe that an investment of £3.8 billion between 2016-17 and 2020-21 will address the matter, but the point is absolutely valid.
We heard that bus drivers were turning off audio-visual information. We are investing £2 million to make sure that that information is available, especially among smaller bus companies, because it is absolutely key for all people who use buses, not only those who are disabled. It makes no sense whatsoever to turn off that information. Once again, training is absolutely key in this area.
A number of comments were made about driver-operated-only and driver-controlled-only trains and levels of staffing. First, we must be aware that where those issues have been raised, such as on the Southern lines, there has been an increase in staff, not a reduction. We must also understand that driver-operated-only and driver-controlled-only trains have been operating for a substantial amount of time. It is not always about having more people available; it is also about having the right people with the right training. It does not help if more people are available but they do not do the right thing by supporting passengers who have concerns about disability and accessibility. As this matter is often raised, it is important that people know that the motivation behind the inclusive transport strategy is to ensure that disabled passengers have a good-quality service. That is the primary goal of the strategy. Opposition Front Benchers need to decide whether to prioritise passenger experience, or whatever a union wishes to push. We need to establish whether we look at training across the rail network, including for drivers, or support union practices that may or may not get in the way of providing a better service for passengers. I believe that we need to focus on passengers, instead of on what the unions might be arguing for at any one point.
The inclusive transport strategy has not only a very ambitious plan, which will obviously continue to be in place, but a substantial amount of money behind it. We have £300 million for Access for All, which is about not just steps, but anything that a train operating company, in conjunction with the local community and the local authority, believes needs to be amended at a station or on a platform to make it more accessible. There is also £2 million of new funding for the Changing Places scheme, as well as £2 million for audio-visual information for smaller bus operators, which is backed up with training so that drivers do not switch it off when it is meant to be working. A substantial amount is also available for awareness.
I have set out what is happening today but, if I may, I will take a moment to talk about the future. Throughout the Government’s industrial strategy and in all our major transport infrastructure projects, technology is absolutely key. We want to make sure that transport is at the front of absorbing any new technology that will enable us to provide the most efficient service possible. New developments such as autonomous vehicles and mobility as a service offer benefits to our economy and have a great potential to improve the options available to disabled people. It is important that we are always abreast of new products and services to ensure that we design the most inclusive transport system.
We also have in place the future of mobility call for evidence, which is focusing on technology’s potential to help people to access and use transport. It is essential, as has been noted, that the designs developed are within the reach of all people, regardless of their disability. There is no point our running ahead and using technology from which people already feel excluded.
I thank the House for this opportunity to consider the important issues highlighted by the inclusive transport strategy. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members have been persuaded of not only my commitment, but the commitment of the Department, to improving accessibility for everyone on our transport network. I hope that that will not only make people’s journeys easier but, fundamentally, increase their confidence to go about their lives in the same way as the rest of us.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the inclusive transport strategy.
M26 Closures
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
It is a privilege to be here, speaking on behalf of the people I represent and on an transport issue of which many people will be very conscious, given the events of recent weeks, but let me start by saying how sorry I am that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will not be intervening this afternoon. We will all miss the adventure and surprise of finding out what connection the M26 in Kent could possibly have to Strangford. Sadly, that will be for another day.
The M26 is a key strategic road in the south-east of England that helps to connect our country to our European neighbours, providing a reliable link to our nearest port at Dover. It also facilitates the significant east-west traffic flow through the county of Kent. Communities such as Ashford, Maidstone, and those I represent in West Malling and Borough Green, have grown and prospered because the road network provides superb links with the rest of the south, along the M25-M26-M20 corridor. Therefore, any plan that might prevent such good access would cause economic and social damage to the area and require significant planning and mitigation. A scheme of enormous scale—such as turning the M26 into a lorry park—would require lots of consultation to allow people to plan for alternative routes.
The Government plan to us the M26 as a lorry park. Now, this is a surprise. It would fundamentally change the lives of residents and businesses across Kent, but neither the Department for Transport, nor Highways England, has asked to hear the thoughts of those affected. I am pleased that the Secretary of State and the Minister, who I am delighted to see in his place, met me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) last week, and I am happy that we have a further meeting with our local councils next week. I speak for all in saying that we understand that contingencies have to be made for a no-deal Brexit, but this is not a workable solution. Now, this is not just not workable for west Kent, but for the whole country, as this is ultimately a national concern.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I appreciate the time that the hon. Gentleman has taken to highlight the issues in Kent and across the country. Does he agree with me—an MP representing a constituency in another part of south-east England—that there may well be particular congestion pressures on the south-east, as the problems that he described on the M26 spread to the M25, M4 and other neighbouring motorways, affecting all our towns and cities across the south-east of England?
Tom Tugendhat
Indeed; I am getting to that exact point, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman should make it.
When plans are developed for any area, local residents and businesses are expected to have their say, but that has not happened here. No information was given on why the closures were happening, other than for “central reservation works”. This phrase could realistically mean anything, and does not indicate the scale of what is proposed. I checked with a few people, including local county councillor, Harry Rayner—a more assiduous representative of the community it would be hard to find—but I could not find anyone who knew about the central reservation works. Earlier this year, I had heard that the idea of using the M26 to store HGVs was being talked about as a vague possibility, which is why I wrote to the Secretary of State on 4 April to raise my concern about the wider effect that this level of disruption would have on the local strategic road network. I shall quote from the letter that the Minister has no doubt seen, but that others in the House may care to hear:
“I would be grateful if I could meet urgently with your team planning this to talk about the impact closing the M26 for a sustained period would have on the local road network and the villages which rely on it.”
This is hardly a surprising turn of phrase, but as no meeting was forthcoming, I wrote to Highways England about works on the strategic road network in Kent. The M26 was not mentioned in its reply.
As recently as three weeks ago, when I asked Highways England if there were any plans to use the M26 in the case of a no-deal Brexit, I was told that there were not, so I was satisfied that there were no plans to subject communities in the area to even more traffic nightmares. For months, I have told the people I represent that this would not happen, following assurances that I had received. I now feel that we have all been let down. Why was there no consultation? The Department for Transport and Highways England are publicly funded, and they should be held accountable for their decisions. To fail to consult the communities most affected by the scale of the proposal is unacceptable. The very least they can do is to apologise.
I am calling for a fundamental rethink of this idea, which would almost cut communities off and cause chaos across the whole area, particularly as there are alternatives outside Kent; I would like the Minister and his Department to explore these. I very much hope that he will have detail on this by the time of his meeting with me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks and our councils next week. We need to explore how we keep lorries at their source rather than allowing them to park in Kent—neither their start point nor, indeed, their end destination. There is technology available and emerging that would enable this to happen. The M26 is not a lorry park and does not have to be used in this way.
Since the closures were announced two weeks ago, a lot of people have linked the proposal to the vote to leave the European Union, but Kent has actually been looking for a solution since Operation Stack plagued the county in 2015, well before the referendum, let alone the result. The impact of closing the M26 is severe, regardless of the cause. Take policing, for example. Our excellent police and crime commissioner, Matthew Scott, has said that pretty much every traffic officer in the county would be needed to patrol a closed motorway. This would create a huge hole in Kent police’s resources, with neighbourhoods nervous about losing their officers to cover for their colleagues. It is no wonder that Matthew thinks this is an unworkable idea.
The views of local people and representatives like Matthew matter because their local knowledge can provide real insight and solutions. For example, has anyone thought what happens to HGVs travelling north on the A21, or south from the Dartford crossing on the M25? There are no slip roads on to the M26, so how would they join the queue? Do they rat-run through villages like Shipbourne to get to the junction? Sat-navs—which, as we all know, have caused many issues for lorry drivers and for people living on small roads in past years—will no doubt take lorries through small lanes that are unsuitable. Do they travel the wrong way on the M25, or go along the A25 through six air quality management areas in 18 miles? These 18 miles along the M25 and M26 are the longest stretch of motorway in England without a junction. The A25 runs parallel the whole way—a single carriageway almost everywhere, even through villages such as Borough Green that suffer the most with air quality and congestion. Borough Green cannot cope with more traffic, particularly large HGVs. Its air quality will suffer even more. It is a perfect example of why the problem needs to be stopped at source, rather than parking HGVs in Kent that then cannot proceed on to Europe.
Could using the M26 as a lorry park be mitigated? Possibly, but I want to know what avenues the Department has explored. Can lorries be kept at source? Will my hon. Friend the Minister look at utilising lorry-holding facilities before the Dartford crossing so that Kent does not have to bear the whole of this load? If not, how can the Government provide appropriate mitigations for communities like Borough Green and Platt on the A25? That question is perhaps the hardest to answer. It requires significant investment. Take the air quality issue. How can the Minister and colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provide funds and suitable equipment to properly measure the impact? How can they make sure that Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council can enforce the statutory limits so that they are kept within? What additional powers will be granted? These are all questions that we do not yet know the answers to.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) joins me in the comments that I now make. Currently, when there is a problem on the M26, the impact stretches further afield, much further south and east of the motorway. For example, the A227 is the only realistic route in or out of Wrotham and runs over the M26. Congestion there leaves the village almost cut off, with a single track road to the west the only option. The conurbation of Wrotham—a wonderful and very beautiful village—and its neighbours Borough Green, Platt, Ightham and others understandably feels that it has been getting rough treatment recently. Its infrastructure is declining, when connectivity matters more than ever.
I want to try to make the lives of people living and working in these beautiful villages better, not worse, but traffic congestion and poor air quality remain problematic, and rail services are often unreliable and slow. I do not need to rehash the issues surrounding the Southeastern timetable changes, but added to the delayed start to Thameslink services to the City of London and compounded by the threat of a lorry park, villages could be cut off.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that this seems to imply that the Department for Transport simply is not sufficiently well prepared for what might come about on 29 March next year? Is he aware that the Comptroller and Auditor General expressed concerns about the Department’s preparedness last week to the Brexit Committee, when he said that the Department
“has convinced itself that it is less risky than it actually is”?
Is it not time that the Department got on top of this issue, to avoid the very problems for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents that he has set out so eloquently?
Tom Tugendhat
I thank the hon. Lady, the Chair of the Transport Committee, and I should also pay tribute to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). They have both taken up this question with great diligence. If she will forgive me, I am going to focus on the issue particularly relating to Kent, which is not only about Brexit. In fact, this issue is not specifically Brexit-related. It is, as we know, related to Stack, which happened before the referendum and would no doubt have arisen anyway should there have been any issues with crossing the channel. I will focus on the M26 rather than on wider issues, which she not only suggests but has done very capably through her Committee work.
It is worth considering the other implications. There is a planned 3,000-home new development in the area as part of the draft Tonbridge and Malling local plan, which is out for consultation at the moment and to which I urge those who wish to comment to respond as soon as possible. Should that be approved, it will put additional strain on local road and rail networks. Do an extra 3,000 families need hundreds of additional vehicles thundering down country lanes every day? I do not think so, and I would be surprised if others did.
Clarity, consistency and communication matter, especially for businesses. Take, for example, ALS Airport Travel in West Malling. Every day, its drivers make countless journeys from the Malling area to Gatwick. The combination of closing the M26 and the existing smart motorway work on the M20 will have a hugely detrimental impact on the business.
We have no faith in Highways England to manage two neighbouring works concurrently. It cannot even get the M20 scheme right at the moment. Lower speed limits, narrow lanes and full road closures are already forcing traffic on to local roads. Accidents are on the rise. We see the effect every day. Highways England’s woeful lack of communication across any scheme sees closure dates change frequently and residents unsure of what it will deliver for them. It has happened already with the scoping works on the M26 last week. The motorway opened two days before it was planned to, which is great, but Highways England failed to tell anyone that it had happened. The Department and Highways England really must start talking to the people who are most affected by these plans.
Closing the M26 to hold lorries will impact public transport, too. In a rural area, where many people travel long distances to school, even the slightest delay in the morning affects the network for the rest of the day. Has the Department spoken, for example, to local bus operators about that? How will it ensure that children get to school on time? More pressingly, should the education of students in west Kent be impacted day in, day out, because the area is at a standstill due to HGVs preferring not to stop in the county and blocking our major roads?
One possibility that I would like to see implemented if this proposal proceeds is to relax the rules of the traffic commissioner to allow bus operators and Kent County Council to modify and change bus routes quickly. Some people, including me, have argued that 70 days’ notice is too long already, but the Government have an obligation to ensure that public transport still works and to put into place changes that mean children can get to school on time and as stress-free as possible.
This is just as important for any other motorist, so can the HGV parking ban on Kent County Council roads, piloted in Ashford, be extended county-wide, and can the penalty be increased, with permission to clamp on the first offence as well? Without that, our roads will not have a chance of being free and available for local traffic to use. Sadly, clamping matters in this circumstance. Can roadworks on local roads be limited, too? I would like powers to be granted to Kent County Council to enable it to charge more than currently permitted under the lane rental scheme to limit works causing delays on the roads. This would require departmental approval and, I understand, a statutory instrument, but it is precisely the sort of change that needs to happen.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I could talk more about the further mitigations possible under part 4 of schedule 7 to the Traffic Management Act 2004, but I trust you and the Minister already understand my concern. There is an argument that, wherever disruption might occur, these ideas should be implemented. This summer, a sinkhole developed on the A26 in Maidstone, closing the road for months, and the whole of mid and west Kent suffered as a result. The highway network in our corner of Kent is not resilient, and this needs to be considered as well.
At yesterday’s Public Accounts Committee sitting, the permanent secretary of the Department admitted that the works on the M26 would cost £30 million to £35 million and include hard shoulder improvements as well as the central reservation works. Can the local community also benefit from these improvements? Why not pursue a simpler solution and stop HGVs entering Kent in the first place? Why should it be the responsibility of the garden of England to turn into the parking lot of England? Most HGVs do not start their journeys in our county, so why not keep them at source, as they do in France?
I want to touch on a social issue that I know concerns my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. The M26 is largely rural and it is far from any services. If lorries are parked here, how will drivers be fed and provided with water and sanitation facilities, and where will they sleep at night? Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council and Sevenoaks District Council have clear statutory responsibilities under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, so why have they not been informed either? Both councils do a brilliant job across all services, and they are excellently run, with extremely capable leaders and officers. I am pleased that the Minister will meet us on Tuesday, and it is clear than any proposal on the M26 would require abnormally high levels of Government support for our local councils.
I want to help the Minister and his Department to find a solution to this problem. I welcome the wonderful benefits that the freight industry brings, but there must be a better solution than turning major roads in the county into a lorry park. I look forward to his response and to working with him and local councils in finding such solutions. Before I sit down, I must extend the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, who express their support, but sadly could not be in the Chamber this afternoon.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing this debate on the effect of the M26 road closures on local residents and businesses. I, and of course colleagues and officials, appreciate that this is an issue of great concern to him, on behalf of his constituents. I have met him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon). Knowing the very strong feelings that my right hon. Friend has expressed in public, it is a pity that he could not join us for this important debate and share directly with us the issues that my hon. Friend has raised.
I know that my hon. Friend has raised this with the Secretary of State, and he and I have of course separately discussed it. Let me be clear: the Secretary of State has apologised to my hon. Friend, and I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to him as well—and not just to him, but to his constituents and other affected parties—for the communication failures that have occurred in this case.
Before I respond to the specific points raised by my hon. Friend, it may assist if I set out some of the circumstances that led to the M26 road closures. The work on the M26 that my hon. Friend has mentioned is, as he knows, related to our wider efforts to improve arrangements for traffic management in Kent in the event of disruption at the short channel crossings. In that work, we have been very conscious of the need to do more to mitigate the impact of such disruption on his constituents and Kent residents more generally. The Government are seeking to avoid any repeat of the scenes in 2015 that he referred to and which all colleagues from that area will recall, when Operation Stack was deployed to address disruption—nothing to do with Brexit of course—at the border. This saw long-term traffic problems on the M20 and other Kent roads, especially local roads. It is precisely the point of the work being done now to avoid this kind of disruption.
Since 2015, there have already been increases in lorry-holding capacity at the port of Dover and at Eurotunnel. Highways England has also made improvements to the Dover traffic assessment protocol—known as the Dover TAP—on the A20. This protocol is used to manage any mild disruption to the flow of traffic to the Dover port area and has proved effective in reducing the risk of Operation Stack requiring to be activated. The Department for Transport, Highways England and other partners are currently working closely together and with local bodies, particularly the Kent Resilience Forum, to develop contingency plans for the complete replacement of Operation Stack.
It is important to be clear that Operation Stack has been superseded by Operation Brock. This new approach has been designed to ensure that, unlike under Operation Stack, the M20 will be kept open and traffic will continue to flow in both directions at times of cross-channel disruption. Operation Brock consists of three phases, involving a contraflow queuing system on the M20 and holding areas at Manston airport and, if necessary, on the M26. The contraflow system on the M20 will allow lorries to queue between junctions 8 and 9 of the coast- bound M20. At the same time, other traffic will be able to proceed in both directions on one side of the motorway, with access to junctions.
This represents a significant improvement on previous deployments of Operation Stack, when junctions were closed and traffic diverted off the M20 on to local roads, adversely affecting local communities and businesses in Kent. It is estimated that the Brock contraflow will be capable of holding at least 2,000 HGVs, in addition to the 2,000-plus capacity that the additional spaces at Eurotunnel, the port of Dover and the Dover TAP provide between them. We will therefore have substantial truck-holding capacity while maintaining flow of traffic on the M20 at all times.
We are highly conscious, however, of the need to have even deeper resilience plans in case of levels of disruption that exceed even this capacity. The Government need to plan for all eventualities. In the event of this kind of disruption, which would only occur in exceptional circumstances, we have two further options at our disposal. First, the currently disused Manston airport stands ready to be put into service if needed. It has an enormous runway that can hold up to 4,000 lorries. Then, of course, on the specific subject of today’s debate, plans have been in development for some months now to utilise the M26 to hold lorries should even further capacity be required. To be clear, neither Manston nor the M26 option would ever be deployed if the initial suite of measures had been successful.
These measures can be deployed discretely in response to a specific incident or in sequence as part of an escalation plan. The exact approach to this phasing is in the final stages of development with the Department’s delivery partners. Our preference is for Manston to precede the M26 option, but of course if an emergency is called, any operational decision will be made by the gold command on the day. All measures will be available, with full operational plans developed, by March next year.
The specific points raised by my hon. Friend fall into a number of broad areas. The first is his point about engagement and consultation with affected parties and communities. He focused on consultation. As he is aware, we are already undertaking work on a longer term solution for a lorry-holding scheme. In June and July 2018, Highways England ran a series of public information events on the proposed way forward, and it is currently assessing the responses.
It is becoming apparent that a range of on-road and off-road solutions have received strong support, and those could offer maximum benefit for future network resilience. There will be further public discussion on more detailed proposals when they have been fully worked out, and our aim is for the improved arrangements to be in place by 2023.
Although there has not been a formal consultation on immediate contingency plans to replace Operation Stack, over the past year there has been extensive and more or less continuous engagement. That included the meeting that the Secretary of State and I held in March 2018 with Members for Kent constituencies—as my hon. Friend said, he was unable to attend, but he referred to it in a letter that followed. At that meeting, the Secretary of State outlined his vision for the M26 being used in extreme circumstances as an extra resource. After my hon. Friend wrote to the Secretary of State on 4 April, I invited him to attend a tea surgery on 30 April 2018, and again on 21 May, to discuss our contingency plans. It is therefore not fair to say that no meeting was forthcoming—on the contrary, the normal procedure, which is to have a tea surgery to understand the problem and then to go deeper into it with officials, was available and offered at the time. My officials have also had numerous meetings—more than 40—with local stakeholders and Kent Resilience Forum groups over the past year. Other opportunities to discuss the plans have been available, and used by other Members in correspondence and parliamentary questions.
My hon. Friend refers to comments made by the PCC and Highways England, and there is clearly always the risk of miscommunication or misunderstanding. Highways England has been clear about the need to work on the M26 and its potential role as an option of last resort, and the Secretary of State has held conversations with key local stakeholders. I understand there is agreement on the work to be undertaken and the options that should be explored, but it is important to be clear that no one—certainly no one in my Department, or in Kent or any of the organisations involved—wants to put restrictions on the M20, to have to park lorries at Manston or potentially to close the M26. These are contingency plans. If there is major traffic disruption as the result of action by EU states, we need the best plan possible to mitigate the effects of that, and a plan that works for the whole of Kent and the wider UK economy.
Detailed plans on the system are being developed. My hon. Friend mentioned the wider impact of these measures, and work is being carried out to attempt to understand the nature of the flow of HGVs into Kent, to see whether that can be mitigated in the event of disruption. As part of that, officials are considering the impact on the local network, as well as on the M25. I recognise and share my hon. Friend’s concern about this issue, but we must also consider what the counterfactual would be, and what would happen if lorries were not managed in a planned, co-ordinated and effective way. In the event that we had to close the M26, I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns about the impact on Wrotham. However, it would at least benefit from keeping the M20 open, and we know that that is a much more important strategic road, with high traffic flows, including for local traffic.
My hon. Friend raised a question about air quality, and that is inevitably a facet of any congestion on the local network and will be considered as part of the broad assessment. Again, however, the counterfactual applies, and it is important to understand what the impact on air quality would be if we had major traffic disruption without these contingency plans. My hon. Friend asked questions about the involvement of district councils, and all district councils in Kent, including Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council and Sevenoaks District Council, are members of the Kent Resilience Forum and have had the opportunity to get involved in the development of those contingency plans.
The M26 closures are the specific reason for this debate, and under advice, they were deemed to be necessary for the undertaking of survey work that, in this case, was not formally subject to prior notification and, as my hon. Friend noted, ended earlier than the stipulated date. However, I absolutely accept that, given the sensitivity of this particular issue at that particular time, a more proactive and tailored approach to advance communication should have been adopted. That is why I have issued an apology and why we are so clear on that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State feels the same way. The closures should have been notified more widely.
The survey work undertaken included taking core samples from the central reservation area, checking structure heights, assessing the condition of the existing M26 Otford emergency access, taking measurements, assessing 4G signal strength and undertaking drainage surveys. Highways England has confirmed that further overnight closures on the M26 are also planned in November and December. They follow site surveys carried out on the M26 in October. During those closure periods, work will be undertaken to install crossover points in the central reservation, which can be used to direct traffic on to the opposite carriageway. Such crossover points are commonplace on motorways and major A roads across the country. Their purpose is to help Highways England to manage traffic flow during incidents.
The Government are determined to keep the road network moving at times of potential cross-channel disruption for local people, businesses and visitors. That is why we continue to work closely with Highways England and other partners on developing both short- term and longer-term solutions to Operation Stack. On 5 November, I will host a further roundtable with Members of Parliament for Kent constituencies. At that meeting I expect to update Members on current plans and will be happy, as always, to discuss longer-term issues and proposals. It will be another opportunity to help to shape our proposals as they go forward, and I hope that as many Kent constituency Members as possible will attend.
To conclude, we doubt that these contingency measures will be needed, but if they are, then we are doing the necessary planning. If we did have significant disruption at the border resulting in traffic disruption in Kent, then let us be clear there is no panacea and no cure-all, but we want to ensure that we can manage disruption while keeping Kent moving. It is important that we do that in partnership with the key stakeholders working through the existing Kent resilience arrangements. I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues and partners to ensure we are well placed to cope with any outcomes.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 12 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018.
It is a huge pleasure to be here with you in the Chair, Ms Buck. This is my first such experience as Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for Exiting the European Union, so I hope you will treat me gently. It is a particular pleasure to introduce the regulations, because one of my first acts on taking up my role on 9 July was signing them.
The regulations are one of three statutory instruments laid by the Department before the summer, all made under the consequential power in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Government have always been clear that the consequential power is a standard power, commonplace in legislation, that it is inherently limited and that its main expected use is for matters of a technical nature. All three statutory instruments laid under the power fall into that category.
I draw that to the Committee’s attention because, on Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) suggested he had
“never come across such a wide power”—[Official Report, 7 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 360]
as the consequential power under the Bill. I hope hon. Members will see that concerns about the use of the power were perhaps a touch overblown. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that, although the negative procedure could legally have been used for the regulations, we opted to follow the affirmative procedure in this case, so that we are not amending legislation of a constitutional character without providing the opportunity for parliamentary debate.
Put simply, the regulations help lay the groundwork for our exit from the European Union and ensure that the UK’s legal system will continue to function effectively on exit day. They are another step in our Brexit preparations, designed to support legal certainty and continuity as we leave the European Union.
To give some detail, the regulations repeal legislation that has become redundant in consequence of the repeal of parts of the European Union Act 2011 and the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. On 4 July, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)—my predecessor at the Department—signed the commencement regulations that repealed section 5 of the 2008 Act and sections 1 to 13 of the 2011 Act. Those laws provided for particular procedures for the approval or ratification of certain EU decisions or treaty changes that would result in the transfer of power from the United Kingdom to the European Union, including the so-called referendum lock. Such provisions are now redundant in the context of our leaving the European Union.
As a consequence of those repeals, legislation that approved matters in accordance with those Acts has also become redundant. Affected legislation includes the European Union (Approvals) Act 2017 as well as parts of the European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Act 2013 and the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Without these regulations, that legislation would continue to sit meaninglessly on our statute book; by repealing it, we ensure that the statute book remains clear and therefore more effective. Members should note, however, that the repeals in the regulations do not have any effect on the validity of anything done in relation to EU decisions or treaty changes approved by them.
The regulations also make consequential amendments to interpretive legislation to reflect the introduction of a new category of law—retained direct EU law—into the UK’s legal system on exit day. Amended legislation includes the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 and the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which set out the rules on making statutory instruments—or, in the case of Northern Ireland, statutory rules—under powers contained in primary legislation. In order to provide certainty after exit, the regulations amend that legislation to make it clear that the normal rules on making statutory instruments or statutory rules apply when secondary legislation is made under powers contained in retained direct EU legislation.
The regulations amend the Laying of Documents before Parliament (Interpretation) Act 1948 to ensure that references to laying of documents before Parliament under retained direct EU law are understood to refer to the taking of specific actions in accordance with the relevant Standing Order, Sessional Order or other direction or practice observed by each House of Parliament, as prescribed in the Act. That approach is in line with that already taken in the EU (Withdrawal) Act for the purposes of Scotland’s interpretive legislation, as set out in schedule 8 to that Act. The regulations therefore ensure clarity and consistency for the whole of the UK statute book.
I hope that all members of the Committee will agree that the regulations perform a small but worthwhile role in our preparations to leave the European Union and demonstrate the Government’s commitment to ensuring certainty and continuity as we do so.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
May I, too, say that it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck?
The regulations are uncontroversial, so we do not intend to divide the Committee and I do not intend to detain us for very long, but I would like to probe the Minister on a number of points in the hope that he may be able to offer some answers.
It is an essential feature of the rule of law that legislation is not only clear but can be understood by those who are bound by it. Given that principle, will the Minister confirm plainly for the record that the purpose of schedule 1 to the regulations, which repeals provisions contained in two Acts of Parliament and repeals a third in its entirety, is only to tidy up redundant references to approval procedures for certain EU treaties, and that it therefore has no bearing, either directly or indirectly, on how any future treaty or treaties with the European Union will be approved and ratified? On a related point, can he confirm that any withdrawal agreement, subject to the additional procedures for approval that have been agreed, will still have to be laid before Parliament under the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 as a matter of law?
Turning to the various issues raised by schedule 2 to the regulations, could the Minister give the Committee a sense of why the Government feel that they have to legislate in this way and whether it is a direct response to the concerns set out by the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee? Its main concern was that clause 8 of the EU (Withdrawal) Act allows for tertiary lawmaking powers currently exercised at EU level to be reassigned to a domestic Government agency or other public body, say the Food Standards Agency or the Environment Agency, and for that agency or body to then make changes to the law in the same way that a Minister would, but without those changes being approved by this House by means of a statutory instrument pursuant to an Act of Parliament. If that is the reason for legislating in this way, will the Minister confirm that the schedule 2 is nothing more than, as he put it, a means of tidying up to ensure consistency and clarity and to close that loophole so that lawmaking powers contained in retained direct EU legislation will henceforth be subject to the same forms of domestic scrutiny as lawmaking by SI under Acts of Parliament?
I will take this opportunity to press the Minister on the wider issue of the progress that the Government have made to date in their legislative preparations for exit day. We all know that we will need approximately 800 to 1,000 SIs to be passed to ensure that we have a functioning statute book on 29 March next year—assuming, that is, that the Government do not use the forthcoming withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill to repeal the fixed exit day that they themselves inserted into the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. A recent report by the Hansard Society found that, so far, only 71 SIs have been laid before Parliament and that even processing SIs at the pace we have seen to date appears to be creating problems, with 20% of the SIs put before the European Statutory Instruments Committee found to contain some form, minor or otherwise, of technical deficiency. Given the importance of processing the hundreds of SIs necessary for an orderly exit, will the Minister give the Committee a sense of precisely how the Government are going to ensure over the coming weeks that all the SIs necessary will have been passed before exit day?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I can be quite brief in my answer to the three specific questions about schedule 1, withdrawal agreements and the purpose of schedule 2. The answer to all three questions is yes.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the statutory instruments needed so that we are ready for exit day. Hon. Members will have seen that the Fisheries Bill has been introduced today, which is a big piece of exit legislation. The Agriculture Bill has also been introduced, and more Bills will come forward. The SI programme flows from legislation, so it was always going to be the case that there would be more SIs at this stage of proceedings than there have been in the previous two years. We have a manageable programme of SIs. It does mean that parliamentarians will be sat in Committees like this scrutinising them, but that is our role—
Chris Heaton-Harris
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole has volunteered to sit on pretty much every Delegated Legislation Committee available. There is a programme, and my Department is co-ordinating an overview.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a jocular remark, but will he expand on the Government’s decision to use the affirmative procedure for this order? There is a sifting Committee, which we agreed as a result of a long discussion. Part of the reason for creating it was to make sure that important things are properly discussed, but it was partly also to make sure that very unimportant things are not. We are clearly all going to go completely mad—if we are not already so—if we have to deal with every totally uncontroversial and uninteresting piece of crypto-constitutional legislation conducted through statutory instruments in this form. Will he therefore give us an undertaking that really unimportant SIs will be put before the sifting Committee, so that it can decide whether they should be dealt with by this method or by the negative procedure?
Chris Heaton-Harris
If only my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) were present to answer that. I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. Before the Committee stands a very junior Minister who was very keen to ensure that he did not make a mistake in the laying of his first statutory instrument. However, that is exactly the purpose of the sifting Committee.
To answer a question that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich asked, I have had conversations with the chairs of the sifting Committees in the Lords and the Commons to give them a rough idea of the Government’s plans. My Department will absolutely co-ordinate the flow of SIs so that we have a functioning statute book as we leave the European Union.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Companies (Directors' Report) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Energy and Carbon Report) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 12 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Companies (Directors’ Report) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Energy and Carbon Report) Regulations 2018.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The principle behind the draft regulations is one that we would all support: encouraging good behaviour. What gets measured gets managed, and sunlight is a great disinfectant.
The draft regulations will introduce new requirements for large unquoted companies and large limited liability partnerships, and additional requirements for quoted companies of all sizes, to disclose in their annual report information on emissions, energy consumption and energy efficiency action. They will deliver streamlined energy and carbon reporting, as part of a package of changes announced in the 2016 Budget with the valuable aim of simplifying what some stakeholders saw as an overly complex tax and reporting policy landscape—a point of view with which I have great sympathy. They will also ensure that reporting on energy and associated emissions continues after the closure of the carbon reduction commitment energy efficiency scheme at the end of its current phase.
After Green Great Britain Week last week, the Committee will need no reminding that Britain has led the world in introducing measures to reduce greenhouse emissions. That was thanks to an awful lot of cross-party work—long may that continue. Our emissions intensity reduction by unit of national income is at the top of the G20 measurement league; those are not my figures, but those of PwC. One reason for that success was that in 2013 we were the first country in the world to make it compulsory for quoted companies’ annual reports to include emissions data for their entire organisation.
In September 2017, we were one of the first countries to endorse the recommendations of the brilliant Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. The taskforce, which was set up by the Bank of England, called on companies and financial institutions to implement “decision-useful” disclosure of energy and emissions information in their mainstream financial reports, so that shareholders, investors and employees can clearly understand the risks from changes in climate.
Our clean growth strategy looks at the other side of the problem. Reporting on emissions should encourage companies to take action to reduce them, so we have set out several measures for leading global efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions by working with businesses, with the aim of improving energy efficiency in business and industry by at least 20% by 2030. In order to take action, however, organisations must know the quantum of the problem, and the first step is measuring energy use and emissions.
The draft regulations will provide an estimated 11,900 organisations with a legal framework, creating much-needed consistency in organisational energy emissions reporting. We estimate that that will lead to savings for businesses of more than £250 million a year in average energy bills.
The Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors’ Report) Regulations 2013 introduced a requirement for approximately 1,200 quoted companies to state in their directors’ report their annual greenhouse gas emissions alongside an intensity metric, and to disclose the methodology used. The draft regulations will introduce a new obligation for those companies to report their underlying global energy use, to better reflect the true impact of their operations.
The draft regulations will also introduce new requirements for more than 10,000 large unquoted companies and large LLPs to report information about their UK energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in relation to electricity, gas and transport, and to disclose the methodology used to calculate the relevant disclosures. They will further introduce a new requirement to report on the principal measures that the organisation has taken to increase energy efficiency in the financial year. As per the existing requirements, those disclosures are to be included in annual reports—specifically, the directors’ report for companies and a new energy and carbon report for LLPs. We believe that not only will they provide improved transparency for senior management, investors and stakeholders but will enable energy and carbon performance to be in line with both financial and operational performance. Companies might well take interesting learnings from considering what other peer group companies are doing.
If approved, the regulations will be introduced for financial years starting on or after 1 April next year. As always, we consulted widely on the policy and we received 155 responses. The majority of respondents agreed that mandatory reporting is important and that it should apply UK wide, be aligned with best practice in the UK and internationally, and build on the existing mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions by quoted companies and mandatory energy audit under the energy savings opportunity scheme.
There was a very strong message that Government should not impose undue regulations and administrative burdens on UK businesses. The provisions contained in these regulations have gone through a number of refinements to meet that aim, such as the introduction of a minimum energy use threshold for the full disclosures. We have introduced the ability for unquoted companies and LLPs to introduce, as sometimes happens with parliamentary questions, a statement that it would not be practical to meet the reporting obligations, because it is impractical to obtain the information or that disclosure would be seriously prejudicial to the interests of the organisation.
In conclusion, we believe these regulations strike the right balance between disclosure of energy and carbon information and limiting the red tape burden, and that they will help to deliver consistent transparent and comparable reporting, to ensure that businesses can make informed investment decisions as we transition to a low-carbon future. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am just getting over the title of the statutory instrument this morning; I concur with the Minister that they are beginning to set new records in sub-clauses and brackets. Perhaps we should keep a running tally, for reporting purposes, of the length of the titles of statutory instruments.
The essential element of this statutory instrument is what companies should do to report their emissions, energy use and various other matters. I completely concur with the Minister that reporting arrangements provide sunlight as a disinfectant. It is right that a scheme should allow that to happen. There was a previous scheme that allowed that to happen under the original carbon reduction commitment. The CRC arose from the Climate Change Act 2008; in its design, it not only required reporting but had a trading element, which was sub-traded between companies. It allowed an extension of the trading arrangements alongside reporting arrangements, which had originally been envisaged in the Climate Change Act for larger companies.
The CRC was systematically whittled away by various measures as it progressed: first by the end of the trading arrangements with companies; secondly by the element of the CRC that not only provided for reporting but for reporting league tables to be produced by the Environment Agency, to allow comparisons of companies’ performance. As the Minister has said, it also provided direct sunlight on to those companies’ activities by comparing them with others.
The third whittling away was the complete closing down of the CRC. It will finish in the 2018-19 reporting period and will be the end of the CRC as a whole. This replacement arrangement for the reporting elements of the CRC is very welcome, but it is the least one might expect following the closure of the CRC. Yes, in introducing additional requirements to the climate change levy on smaller companies the Government have introduced an element of revenue-neutral arrangements for trading, but the arrangements are a welcome successor to the reporting arrangements under the CRC. To some extent they extend those reporting arrangements, as a substantial number of non-quoted companies will now be included. Some 11,000 companies will be required to put these directors’ reports in their company filing.
The problem that we still have is that there appears to be nothing in this particular SI that requires or indicates what will be done with that material once it appears in directors’ reports. At the very least, I would expect spreadsheet reporting, perhaps through the Environment Agency, of collated versions of those company reports. At the very best, I would expect a new league table of those performances, using that data and reporting nationally. There is nothing in the SI that suggests that that will be the case, so the sunlight is apparently somewhat filtered.
A person can get the comparative material coming out of those companies’ reporting, but only if they trawl through every single directors’ report and sit there with a towel on their head for weeks on end trying to put those into line. The original CRC reporting and league table reporting substantially resolved that problem and was widely welcomed when it was originally published.
The slightly alarming backdrop to that is that league tables are theoretically available for company reporting from 2010 to 2012 under the original CRC arrangements. However, were someone to look them up, they would find that they do not exist. They have been deleted. There is not very much sunlight at all so far as historic CRC reporting is concerned. I warmly welcome the introduction of the reporting arrangements, but can the Minister tell me what her Department’s intentions are concerning the presentation of the material in collated form by Government? Better still, can she tell me whether there are any arrangements in hand or proposed for producing, as was the case with the original CRC, some form of league table presentation of those results? It may be that there are separate intentions that are not represented in this SI. If there are, I would very much like to hear about them this morning.
My final request is for the Minister to arrange to ensure that those original CRC league tables are restored to the public record. That would be a good idea because it is not satisfactory that they have been deleted, as they appear to have been. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assistance in getting those back into the public domain.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Any move to tackle climate change is welcomed by the Scottish National party. We see it as the greatest risk we face this generation. We are concerned that allowing directors to decide when to be exempt from making statements because of such a statement being
“seriously prejudicial to the interests of the company”
could mean a real risk that the companies that most need to make reductions will just avoid making a statement, because of regulation 6. We encourage the Department to consider removing the exemption, or at least explicitly requiring a director making such a judgment to note in a report that there is no statement on energy usage because “such a statement would be seriously prejudicial to the company’s interests”.
Claire Perry
I thank my friend the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for a characteristically detailed analysis. I have an idea. I imagine that we will be meeting many times over the next few months, on various things, and I thought that perhaps we could enliven proceedings if the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate taught us all to floss. I was very impressed when I saw his efforts, and that would be marvellous on parliamentary TV.
Turning to the meat of these important regulations, I obviously welcome the support for them expressed by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. He asked, I think, about why this arrangement is replacing the CRC, but it sounds as though we agree that it is increasing the scope and reducing the burden and this does lead to net cost savings, based on estimates. I am pleased that he welcomes this change.
The hon. Gentleman asked a really important question about what will happen to the data once it is produced. I understand his desire for statutory measures on how the data should be reported. I want to invite him to come with me to something that I am organising about how the world looks at climate-related information disclosure. We had a big event at Bloomberg during Green Great Britain Week, and I was astonished at the amount of analysis and reporting in both standardised and bespoke ways that is happening with all sorts of aspects of climate data, because the audiences for the reporting are very different. Employees might be interested in what their company is doing and will potentially look at the information on a corporate intranet. Government are clearly interested in calculating what the emissions savings are from a particular company. We would be able to query the data remotely, because of course most of this stuff is now in the electronic domain.
There is an enormous and increasingly important raft of activist shareholders and investors whose funds want to align entirely with a low-carbon investment base and who will be relying on analytic platforms such as Bloomberg to grab the information and assess it for them. I think it is rather good that we do not have just one standard way of reporting but are making the information available to a global audience of armchair analysts, who can cut and mash up the data in any way they please. Of course, there are organisations such as BusinessGreen, which both the hon. Gentleman and I have worked with, that will be taking the data and generating their own league tables. I do not think it is for Government to specify how the data is presented. I think it absolutely right that we have made it a mandatory requirement that it be reported, but I imagine that the creative use of the data will be incredible.
I will take away and analyse the hon. Gentleman’s very good point about the league tables, because it would clearly be interesting to see how companies in that group have done over time; we can assess what is happening. We will publish more detailed guidance, and of course any reports that are published will be publicly available from Companies House, which will also act as a repository for all this data.
To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Inverclyde, I think it is a good idea that if someone is opting out, they say so. I will take advice after the sitting as to whether that is implicit or explicit in the regulations. We have had, on similar measures in relation to some of our offshore oil and gas things, the debate as to what is a material event and what is a prejudicial event; and certainly it would be for companies to be clear about what that is.
My instant support team tell me that we will keep the use of non-disclosure options under review, but I think that we could go further and ask companies to say that they are using the non-disclosure option, without giving away too much information.
I am pleased that we have cross-party support for a very useful and balanced set of measures about disclosure. I am almost amazed by how much scrutiny is happening on a global basis on behalf of investors, including some of our largest pension funds, in determining that their portfolios are investing in companies committed to a low-carbon future.
I will invite the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to my office for a cup of tea when our Bloomberg terminals, which we have in the building, are set up and installed, because perhaps we could have a bit of a tutorial together from Bloomberg on how the information is actually being used. I think that that would be very helpful. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Home Education: draft guidance and the consultation
Agriculture Bill (Third sitting)
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The Minister will move an amendment to the programme motion agreed by the Committee on Tuesday.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I beg to move,
That on Thursday 25 October, after hearing oral evidence in accordance with the motion agreed to by the Committee on Tuesday 23 October, the Committee shall hear oral evidence from the following until not later than 4.30pm—
(1) Ulster Farmers’ Union;
(2) NFU Scotland;
(3) Scottish Government;
(4) Quality Meat Scotland.
I wish to record my thanks and that of the Committee to the patient Clerks, who have made accommodations following late requests for additional witnesses.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Sir Roger. Simply put, we need to hear from the Rural Payments Agency and the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The one thing that came out of our earlier sittings was that no one quite knows how what is in the Bill will work, so we need to know from the extant organisations—they might be replaced, but that is something for the Government to decide—exactly how they think they will operate. I ask for another sitting to hear witnesses from those organisations. They might not be able to come, because of the short notice, but they should be called to account. I hope that would be agreed unanimously.
The Chair
In answer to the point of order, my understanding is that the organisations to which you refer were invited to participate but to date have failed to say that they want to attend. I am not sure, but I suppose we have similar powers to a Select Committee to compel them, but the fact is that they have not responded.
Furthermore, those organisations have the right to submit written evidence if they wish to do so at any time. I strongly advise and encourage those with an interest in the Bill—I of course am strictly impartial—to do so, if that is what the Committee wishes. I, however, have no power to alter an agreed programme, so I must now proceed.
I shall add one caveat: if by consensus—it has to be by consensus—the Committee decides to take further evidence later, my understanding is that that is probably practicably possible, but the Programming Sub-Committee would have to reconvene. I suggest that the most practical way forward, given that we are where we are and that those organisations have not responded, is that they are encouraged to provide written evidence, which will of course be made available to all the Committee. It goes without saying that, outside this Committee Room, neither the Chair nor anyone else has any power to restrict conversations between any Member and any organisation, so if Members wish to seek input and advice, they are at liberty to do so, as always.
Question put and agreed to.
The Chair
Thank you for joining us. As always, I am afraid we are playing “beat the clock”, but we will do our best to ensure that everybody has a fair hearing. For the record, please introduce yourselves, starting with Professor Fox.
Professor Fox: Good morning. My name is Pete Fox and I am director of water, land and biodiversity at the Environment Agency.
Helen Taylor: Hello, I am Helen Taylor and I also work at the Environment Agency, where I am programme managing our input to future farming.
John Cross: Good morning. I am John Cross. I am a farmer by trade, but I also chair the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs tuberculosis eradication advisory group, and I chair the Traceability Design User Group for the industry and DEFRA.
George Eustice
Q
John Cross: The industry—the whole supply chain—has been mindful for many years that the flow and sharing of data within the supply chain has been virtually non-existent. In the past, the Government have had powers to collect data that they needed for statutory purposes, such as notifiable disease, food chain information and food safety. Those statutory needs were catered for, but for many years the supply chain itself has suffered from the weakness that comes from an absence of data in that supply chain. Data is important for eradicating endemic diseases, which hold back the productivity of the national herds and flocks, and for evidencing the provenance of products for international and domestic markets. Obviously, it is in everyone’s interest to be able to stamp out exotic disease in a hurry, should it flare up. Evidencing provenance in the supply chain is important for international trade opportunities, where international customers’ No. 1 question is always about traceability and the availability of information about the product.
We are not well equipped as a supply chain at the moment at all. In fact, the industry has come to the conclusion, fairly rapidly since the referendum in 2016, that it needs to think very differently about its future. It needs a lot more information to manage its supply chain a lot better. It needs to rid itself of endemic disease. It needs to explore the best possible portfolio of opportunity in the global and domestic market. It needs more information about itself, to enhance those efficiencies, drive out disease and trade with a very good evidence base about its product.
The Chair
Thank you. Ms Taylor and Professor Fox, if you wish to add anything, please feel free to do so.
George Eustice
Q
John Cross: Yes, indeed. As people may or may not know, for the three production species—cattle, sheep and pigs—at the moment there are three different systems. In the main, except for the pig system, they are almost entirely paper-based, with all the problems of workload and cost that go with that.
For the last 20 months, the industry and Government together have formed a group called the TDUC, which is part of an aspiration for a completely new digital livestock information service, and for 20 months Government have been working alongside industry and all the DEFRA agencies, such as the Food Standards Agency, the Rural Payments Agency and trading standards—everyone who has an interest in livestock welfare, livestock health, livestock movements and traceability, food safety and product authenticity.
Anyone involved in those areas of work is involved in what is a co-creation partnership that, for the last 20 months, has worked to design what we intend to be the new livestock information service, which will be a multi-species, paperless, digital information service that will eventually be real-time and comprehensive. That is where these particular data-collection and data-sharing powers will come in—to be the lifeblood that makes the system work. That will probably be the biggest step change that certainly the ruminant livestock sector in this country has seen in many decades.
The pig industry, which is rather more integrated and further down the road than the ruminant sectors, is part way there, but being part of a single system will add value to it as well. This will certainly be the most enabling action that industry and Government could jointly make to make the ruminant livestock sector fit for purpose for the future. That is certainly a view strongly held by the industry itself.
George Eustice
Q
John Cross: Over the years, I have been quite heavily involved in international trade development, and one of the things that struck me in the south-east Asian markets that people talk about, and particularly in China, where there are huge opportunities, is that when you sit in front of Chinese veterinary officials and talk to them about market access, their primary and secondary questions are all about proof of traceability, evidence of traceability, evidence of centrally co-ordinated disease control strategies and data. They talk about product quality and price et cetera at a much lower level later. Any of the big markets we would aspire to balance our whole trade picture with would challenge us on evidencing traceability —that would be their very first question.
Indeed, if we actually look at our proposition, as an English industry out there on the global stage, you cannot get away from the fact that all the other big meat-producing economies and traders have either already done what we are doing or are in the process of doing it now, at pace. I strongly believe that in this country we produce some of the best—if not the best—meat products in the world, but the challenge from future customers and competitors will be to prove it. At the moment, our system creaks and struggles to do that, whereas with the powers that we seek, that would be a real-time service that could be demonstrated digitally anywhere in the world, and that would put us completely on the front foot.
Dr Drew
Q
John Cross: To completely enable our vision of the livestock information service, your data has to be complete —you cannot function with half or sub-optimal data. If you are eradicating disease, and that is your focus on that particular usage of data, then unless it is complete, you will not achieve your goal. At the moment, DEFRA has powers to collect data for statutory purposes, but it doesn’t actually have the authority to share that data and to allow people within the supply chain to make use of the data.
There are a whole lot of opportunities for farmers themselves. For instance, there is at the moment a desperate need for farmers to make informed purchasing decisions about whether the cattle they are buying have come from a TB high-risk area or an edge area, or whether they are going to a low-risk area. That whole area of risk-based trading—for any disease, not just tuberculosis—needs information. You cannot manage risk without data. You need the ability to collect data in a complete format from everyone, and then you need to be able to share it so that farmers can access it easily and quickly and it is available in the supply chain. That is what is different—the collection of complete data and making it available.
Professor Fox: First, I would like to say that the Bill provides a really good framework for taking the whole agriculture sector forward. It has a lot to commend it, particularly the provision for payment for public goods and the recognition of a need to transition the sector into a new place.
In terms of the things around regulation enforcement that we would like to see, from an environmental perspective, the Bill could provide an opportunity to have a clear and simplified regulatory baseline. At the moment, we have a series of maybe four key pieces of legislation that are applied disparately, and the Bill offers an opportunity to provide farmers with a clarified and simplified view of what is required of them. I believe that will lead to better conversations between farmers, suppliers and ourselves about what is expected.
Within that, it should be recognised that the provision of environmental goods or public goods should be contingent on compliance with that regulatory baseline in order to give the public confidence that their money is invested in farmers and in outcomes that are genuinely provided in a healthy and vibrant countryside.
Dr Drew
Q
Professor Fox: The issues in farming, and the impacts that farming has on the environment, will be consistent, whatever regulatory or legislative framework is in place. Our skilled workforce is there to advise farmers and to work with them, but then to enforce regulation if necessary—we will be consistent. Unless the Bill or the Secretary of State determines that other regulations will apply, the current framework will roll forward, and we will work on that basis.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Professor Fox: Part 1 of the Bill provides the Secretary of State with powers to make grants to farmers for various public goods, including the management of water—within that, the management of flooding would clearly be a potential beneficiary. The opportunity to manage floods better through landscape-scale work with farmers is already widely recognised. There are a number of schemes around the country where farmers provide attenuation ponds to reduce flood flows, and in so doing provide important community benefits. This scheme of paying for public goods may well support and augment that, and that can only be welcomed.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Professor Fox: Absolutely, and flood is not different from many other environmental issues. Introducing schemes that provide for farmers to work together to share and deliver common outcomes would optimise improvements and protection of the environment, not just as to flooding, but for birds and woodlands and for all sorts of other good reasons—not least the protection of water and water quality.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Professor Fox: Where money is set is a matter for Government to decide. We would advise that there are certain circumstances where that might exacerbate already known flood risk issues, particularly around, and upstream of, rural communities, but we will be there to help and support the delivery of Government’s aims in the round, and we will try to mitigate the impacts on flood risk or any other environment issues arising from Government’s stated aims for the delivery of funds.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Professor Fox: We would be directed by Government to take a particular role. However, I can, through my knowledge and background, understand that, actually, it is not just about all land management needing to change to mitigate flooding. Modelling and studies have shown that quite targeted management of key pieces of land can actually deliver quite big benefits downstream. So I could see us having quite an influential offer to make to Government in advising on how that money should be distributed; but we would take direction from the Government.
The Chair
Thank you. Quite a lot of Members want to ask questions and we do not have a great deal of time, so I ask for brevity both on the part of questioners and in answers, please.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Q
John Cross: I think everyone in our industry would advocate that food and food products procured outside the country should adhere to, and be produced to, the same standards that would be expected of the domestic industry. Indeed, I think everyone’s aspiration would be for workers to be treated in exactly the same way in those other countries. It is beyond my skillset to know what influence we can have on that, but yes, I think that consumers, producers and the whole supply chain in this country would expect imported food to adhere to the same standards and to be of the same production standards as ours.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Q
John Cross: The investment required to change the way animals are identified from the way they are identified now, in fact a system like the livestock information system—in order for it to work, be real-time and achieve what everyone desires—would have to be based on individual electronic identification. So, over a period, we would have to mandate bovine EID. That would mean a small increase in cost in the tagging of cattle, but as scale develops that extra cost diminishes.
We have not yet looked at the technology required for on-farm reading and the rapidity of uptake. It may be that something could be done to enhance training and equipping at farm level. However, we are making sure that in the planning of this system, those farmers who do not wish at the time to invest in reading equipment, or feel that they do not understand it, will have access to collective reading facilities. In other words, that is where the livestock auctioneer sector is so important for smaller producers who do not want to upscale. They can actually get their livestock read, so that they can adhere to the system without having to equip themselves. So we are trying to make it as flexible and as kind as possible, but industry in particular is fairly ambitious about the timescale of change. We must not try to run two systems alongside each other, because the aim is to go from paper to digital, and trying to run both systems would be fraught with problems.
Mr Dunne
Q
Professor Fox: We currently have little responsibility for monitoring and reporting on the state of soils. We are aware of the importance of soils to the production and productivity of our whole landscape, and we are worried about the scale of soil loss, particularly that emanating from farming. It has a large cost associated with it, as well—water companies clearing up the soil and the dredging of rivers that is required as a result of soil loss.
So we would strongly support a greater focus on soil if this Bill could provide it, and more opportunities to help and support farmers to maintain that core productivity. It is absolutely in everybody’s interests that we keep soil on the farmland. I think that greater focus on soil would be entirely beneficial.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Q
Helen Taylor: In answer to the question whether payments or other mechanisms change behaviour, I believe that we need a variety of mechanisms working together. At the moment, regulations are set to prevent pollution from occurring, for example from the water side of things, and then payment is given to raise that standard and deliver more for the environment and the public goods that we want to achieve. Those things together, or combined, have a better effect than either one or the other.
Alongside that, there are all sorts of mechanisms for providing advice and guidance and showcasing how people could best carry that out. I firmly believe that a combination of mechanisms is needed for the future.
Professor Fox: I support that very strongly. The role of the supply chain and producer organisations in helping to promote and assure good environmental practice is a fantastic adjunct to any enforcement effort, and also helps support and promote the delivery of public goods. It is about that mixture of carrot and stick, if you like, to achieve the right outcomes for society and the industry.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Fox: I am not sure I can provide you with a view on that. Clearly, what we have in the Bill is a sensible transition period covering a number of years to allow the industry to move into a new framework of payments. I think that is entirely helpful; it will allow the whole industry to adapt to a new way of thinking for the public. The scale of investment will be a matter for Government.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Q
Professor Fox: Yes.
Chris Davies
Q
Helen Taylor: As a point of clarity, I am not in charge of that; I am just trying to support DEFRA’s thinking in terms of future farming. There is certainly room within thinking at the moment to consider the value and benefit of forestry in helping to deliver those public goods.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
Q
“starting point for the conversion of the agriculture sector to the one we would like to see.”
In no other industry is knowledge passed on from generation to generation more than in farming. Farmers know their land best. How do you feel that smaller upland and lowland farms will benefit from the Bill, and how will it encourage the next generation of young farmers?
Helen Taylor: I agree that knowledge is passed on in this sector. The potential to recognise the public goods that some of those smaller holdings have been promoting and protecting over the years is an advantage for them in the future. Could you repeat the second part of your question, sorry?
Trudy Harrison
Really, it is about how future generations of farmers will feel confident about their potential future on, perhaps, the family farm after the introduction of the Bill. What will it provide for smaller upland and lowland farmers?
Helen Taylor: It is basically the same point again. I hope that recognition of the value of public goods that the farming sector has the potential to deliver will give them more reassurance and more sustainability into the future. Linking it back into the fact that the business itself is dependent on what we might term “natural capital”— clean water, healthy soil in the right place, a healthy atmosphere and a regulated climate—by farming in a sustainable manner, they are buying into their own future assurance as well.
Trudy Harrison
Q
Helen Taylor: Not necessarily, no. I think rewilding is a specific issue for specific places, and it is not necessarily appropriate across the whole of the UK.
The Chair
Q
John Cross: I totally agree with several of the things I have heard about the quality, fertility and productivity of our soils. That is something that some in the industry and some areas of the country have slightly lost focus on, and it is something that I myself am very passionate about.
I do not farm in an area where flooding is a problem, so I do not have any experience there, but designing schemes to encourage or nudge producers into taking a more active role in managing the long-term stability and fertility of their soils has to be the right way to go, because the land’s ability to produce grass or food crops is entirely dependent on its health, structure and organic matter levels. It is the right way to go.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
Q
John Cross: The answer to that is yes. If you look around the world, there is quite a lot of not-quite-off-the-shelf, buy-it-and-plug-it-in technology. High-calibre EID traceability systems are in place all over the world. To identify the equipment that would suit the industry best, we have already had an open supplier day to look at technologies and the potential suppliers of such technologies. In fact, 38 companies from around the world came and showed an interest. If we throw the door open, so to speak, and explain to the industry what we want to achieve and what outcomes this country is looking for, those that see themselves as best suited stay with the process. The aim is to procure the best proven system, rather than build one from scratch.
Colin Clark
Q
John Cross: “Animal health” is a very complex phrase. You have got animal health from the point of view of the absence or presence of disease, and animal health from the point of view of making a judgment about animals that are sick—there is a welfare issue there, depending on the severity of the disease. Animal health is a wide subject. As I said earlier, animals that are suffering from various levels of endemic diseases can be regarded as suffering from that disease. They are highly inefficient; they are wasteful. Animals that are diseased have a higher carbon footprint than healthier ones. They produce less from the inputs they are given. It is like trying to run an industry with the handbrake permanently on. Nothing performs well enough.
From the point of view of the use of inputs, the future of the environment and the impact on climate change, you are much better off if you have a well-run industry producing very healthy animals extremely efficiently. At the same time, that enables you to do a better job environmentally. Inherently, the welfare of animals is enhanced by the absence of disease. It is all interlinked. Is it a public good? I would say yes. Not entirely, but yes.
The Chair
Before I revert to the Minister, are there are any more questions from the Back Benches? No.
George Eustice
Q
On the specifics of the schemes we have now, is not the issue you raise covered by clause 3? It is explicit that, through regulations, the Secretary of State can set eligibility criteria for the new schemes, enforce compliance with the new schemes, make requirements about record keeping, have the power to recover financial assistance and even impose monetary penalties and create offences. That is a pretty comprehensive set of enforcement provisions to sit alongside a new scheme.
I take your point, and the Government accept that we want to review the regulatory baseline and the culture. However, for the purpose of the schemes outlined in the Bill, do you not think the issue is covered by clause 3?
Professor Fox: I agree that clause 3 has an awful lot to commend it, and I believe that is the framework on which the environmental regulations could be hung. Our aim is to ensure that there is clarity for farmers as well as regulators on what we are seeking to achieve together for the future. In that respect, the clause provides the powers and responsibilities—the opportunity for Ministers to make those schemes and those decisions. However, a bit of clarity in the Bill on the direct linkage of compliance with the environmental baseline, being a prerequisite of getting money for public goods, would make a clear statement about the Government’s expectations for the industry. We are contributing fully to the review by Dame Glenys Stacey, as you know, and we look forward to helping the Government to interpret and determine how they want to take any of those forward in any case.
George Eustice
Q
Professor Fox: I agree that it gives the Ministers the choice of doing that.
The Chair
There are no further questions. Thank you Professor Fox, Ms Taylor and Mr Cross for coming to join us and for your evidence, which is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much indeed.
Examination of Witnesses
Jack Ward and Helen Browning OBE gave evidence.
The Chair
Good morning and thank you for joining us. For the benefit of the written record, I would be grateful if you identified yourselves, starting with Mr Ward.
Jack Ward: My name is Jack Ward and I am the chief executive of the British Growers Association. We operate in the fresh produce sector.
Helen Browning: I am Helen Browning, chief executive of the Soil Association and a very mixed organic farmer in Wiltshire, with a whole variety of other enterprises as well.
The Chair
Thank you very much. Ringing the changes, would you like to kick off this time, Dr Drew?
Dr Drew
Q
Jack Ward: There is terrific potential for us to increase our market share. At the moment, we are about 50% of fresh produce, but that is enormously variable. On tomatoes, we only do about 20% of production; on pears, it is about 27%. There is a terrific opportunity. There is an appetite to buy British and an appetite from the retailers to buy British. We have the technology and the skills. There is an opportunity to increase our consumption, so from a fresh produce point of view we just see opportunity ahead. It is just a question of capitalising on that opportunity.
Helen Browning: The Bill is the only bit of the jigsaw that we currently have and we are pinning a lot of our hopes and fears on what it contains. The other more detailed policy that will come through will largely determine whether the powers given in the Bill are used in the right way and will lead us into a great future or not. We are also waiting for a food plan, which will be very important in terms of the market and the market pull. We do not know what the trade environment will be.
The Bill gives some new powers, which is helpful, but it does not set out anything other than the skeleton of what might come. There is a huge amount of devil in the detail that needs to follow, and we need to join all of those things up before I can properly answer your question. I can say what I would like to see in 20 years’ time, but I think the Bill gives us the “may”s, not the “will”s, and a lot more detail needs to follow.
Dr Drew
Q
Helen Browning: The areas where I am still unclear in terms of the public good section is whether we are really focusing enough on soil. We talk about land; we do not talk about soil. We talk about natural culture or natural heritage; we do not talk about wildlife and biodiversity. We need to be a little more specific about some of those areas. Given that we do not yet have any sense of what might happen in other places around a food plan, I would like to see public health mentioned within the Bill as a public good. That would be very helpful.
There is an interesting split: there are some provisions for the support of public goods, and those are very welcome, although they need to be expanded. We then also have a lot around productivity, which could be helpful, but again the devil is in the detail in terms of how we are lining up and looking at those productivity measures.
Are we looking at the environmental and social impacts of what we are doing when we talk about productivity? How do we define that? We need to make sure that we are not setting up some new great initiatives in one place, maybe on the fringes of the field, but not thinking about the overall industry and how it will operate, and how we are going to green the whole of farming and the food system over the next 20 years.
There are still some improvements that need to be made, but, as I say, it is the way this will be interpreted, particularly the definition of what we mean by productivity, that we need to look at hard.
Jack Ward: The first thing to say is that the fresh produce of industry is largely operated outside of the common agricultural policy; it has had very little support over the past 40 years. Some of the things in the Bill are definitely positives. We welcome the continuation of the producer organisation scheme, and we look forward to conversations with DEFRA and the industry to see how we can improve the operability of that scheme. We all recognise that it has its shortcomings, but, going forward, it is a real opportunity.
The productivity piece is interesting. Within fresh produce we are always interested in how you reduce the risk of growing some crops and how you increase and improve the quality of those crops. The other interesting piece is around supply chain fairness. I know that is still to come, but obviously when you deal with multiple retailers and 85% of everything we produce goes through the hands of 10 people—possibly soon to become nine—how you address that imbalance between a large number of relatively small businesses and some enormous businesses is a constant source of tension.
The Chair
For the benefit of our witnesses, I should explain that the Minister is not being discourteous. He has had to leave to present a Bill on the Floor of the House, but I am sure he will be back before the end of this session.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Q
You have mentioned that overall you welcome the Bill, but you have both said that the devil is in the detail. What specific improvements would you like to see in terms of the relationships between Government and the producer organisations? Secondly, you talked about the supply chain and the imbalance between primary producers and the large distribution processes. What specifically would you like to see change? Improved data, information flow and transparency have been talked about, but how would that improve things?
Jack Ward: In terms of the producer organisation, going forward, first we want a single scheme if we can possibly achieve it so that we have a common scheme in all the devolved areas, so that we have not got a different scheme in Scotland from the one that we have in the UK. Within the producer organisations, if you take soft fruit, there is a massive amount of production in Scotland and a lot of them are members of English-based POs. That is really important.
We want the principle of match funding to continue. That has been a really valuable part of it—the idea that the farmer or grower puts in £1 and the taxpayer puts in £1. That binds the two together in a common aim, which is really important. We want a fairly thorough review of the scheme. We need to get into the nuts and bolts of it and cut out the superfluous bits. From conversations with the Rural Payments Agency, it knows as well as we do where all the wrinkles are, so there is a meeting of minds there. We want more flexibility around the way the money can be invested. Sometimes, it is too restrictive and gets in the way of making sensible things, rather than having to spread it across several different areas.
The other thing is to make it more UK-centric. At the moment, it is set up for a southern European production-marketing model. As I have said, we deal with nine customers, and they operate in a very different way from the rest of the EU. We are constantly in a position where we are looking over our shoulder and second guessing how the EU might interpret what we are doing in the UK. We are worried. The RPA is worried. We need to deal with that.
In terms of supply chain fairness, there needs to be a better meeting of minds between retailers and producers. I will give you a simple example. At the moment, we are right in the middle of the English apple season, but we are overwhelmed with southern hemisphere fruit that has been over-bought and is dominating the market—and probably will until Christmas. We have mountains of fruit that needs to move, and yet there is all that southern hemisphere fruit. Eventually, that cascades into difficult conversations between suppliers and retailers. Often, it is about more clarity between the two sides, so we understand what is going on and how we can make the system work better.
Helen Browning: If I can come in on that, I welcome the focus on the relationship between the farmer and the first buyer of produce. We often pin all the woes of the world on to the retailers, but most farmers and producers deal with a processor, not a retailer. Historically, there is a blame game that goes on in that relationship. The processor will blame the retailer, the retailer will blame the processor, and it will all start to shift up and down the chain. In my experience, the processors, many of which are very large businesses, have often not been keen on farmer co-operation, unless it is their own supply chain. If we are going to encourage more farmers to get their act together, market well, grow and plan, we need that relationship to work better and that collaboration to be welcomed by the processors and not crushed, as has often happened in the past.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
I have tabled an amendment on public health, which I hope that you will welcome. It talks about measures to increase the availability, affordability, diversity, quality and marketing of fruit and vegetables. It also talks about pesticide use and antimicrobial resistance—the overuse of antibiotics. Some environmental organisations have said that they do not support the public health goal. I wonder whether we could do more, other than putting it in as a public good, particularly around procurement. In France, for example, there is a rule that 50% of public procurement should be locally sourced or organic produce. Could we do more on that front in the Bill?
Jack Ward: There is a fairly urgent need to promote the consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables—that is a given. It would be incredibly helpful to have something in the Bill that enabled us to do that, although I am not quite sure where responsibility ends for DEFRA and begins for the Department of Health and Social Care. Within the industry, there is certainly a lot of interest in how to extend the message about health and vegetable consumption.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Helen Browning: That is why we need to look at this alongside the food plan, if that is coming through. The two things need to work together. We need to grow a much wider diversity of fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops on our farms; we can expand the diversity of what we do; dietary diversity is a big factor, because we eat far too much of far too few things. However, it needs to be married with the market pull end, which is achieved through things like public procurement. We need to ensure that food is not being ultra-processed. Otherwise, however good it was at the start, it will not be very good by the time it gets to our plates.
I want us to look at the whole picture, because at the moment we are only looking at part of it. We want to see health addressed in the Bill, because we are not seeing it being addressed anywhere else. If we had an absolute assurance that it would be dealt with in other places, and that we were looking at a farming future based on public health, we would not be lobbying quite so hard for it in this place.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Helen Browning: In my view, whole farming systems such as organic farming or agroforestry are probably the most efficient way to support the public goods that we want, because they actually deliver them as an inherent part of the food production system. That is why I have been an organic farmer all my life: I do not want to be farming intensively in one place and trying to produce public goods in another. The integrated approach gives us a balance of food production with environmental care. We will still need to do special things in special places so that we can preserve species, manage floods and so on, but the agro-ecological approach should be at the core of our farming system. We know that we need to start moving away from pesticides and antibiotic use, and towards encouraging rotations and using less manufactured nitrogen.
I welcome the steer on climate change, which is incredibly important. We need to soak up more carbon in our soils and in our trees. We need farming systems that deliver those things, but at the moment that is not coming through strongly enough. It will be financially and physically the most practical way to do it, and it will give people a vision of the future that we can all sign up to. A drive towards using the new technology coming through, as well as traditional techniques, would feel really exciting.
Colin Clark
Q
Part 6 of the Bill is about fairness in the supply chain. Several retailers have moved to central direct buying, reducing the role of packers to, effectively, contract packers. That has been part of the problem with the oversupply of apples this year. The industry is already changing: instead of producer organisations having 12 months’ integrated supply, the supermarkets are now trying to do it themselves. How will the Bill rebalance that? If you do try to rebalance it, you must maintain the natural effect of the market—how else will you control supply? What does the Bill actually do to give real powers of fairness between the power of the supermarkets, where they are already squeezing out the existing supply chain?
Jack Ward: Growers understand that they are operating in a very competitive market and that is the way the world goes. We also have to recognise that we only supply for a part of the year. For growers, with the exception of one or two crops, it is a seasonal operation. Some growers are growing overseas and filling that gap. Generally they understand exactly how the supply chain works. I think I am right in saying that the Minister is charged with developing something around supply-chain fairness in the future. I think it is just about getting a better understanding between the two sides about what supermarkets need and what growers can supply.
This year has been a good case in point. We have been through a really difficult growing season with a very cold start and then a very dry middle period. It took quite a long time before people appreciated that what was coming off the farms would be different from a normal year, as a result of those weather conditions. It is about getting that understanding, acceptance and realisation that things might be different. You are not producing off a spreadsheet. Even if your spreadsheet says you will get x volume of y specification at z price, the season can interrupt that. There needs to be a grown-up discussion about how to accommodate that, rather than buyers turning their backs and saying, “Okay, we will have it in from America,” or wherever.
Helen Browning: I will just add a bit more to that. There is also a need in the wider industry for a real culture change around co-operation and how we work together, both through the supply chain and between producers themselves. In some areas, we have better integration and better co-operative working. In the “Health and Harmony” document, the co-op that I belong to—the Organic Milk Suppliers Co-operative—was cited as a very good case study, and that is absolutely right. Differentiating markets, being very clear of our purpose, being inventive and entrepreneurial, and working well in partnership will all stand us in good stead.
There is a real need to look at transparency and information clarity, which we have already talked about a bit today. I also want to mention the opportunity to shorten supply chains and create new markets through investing in the kind of infrastructure that we need, in order to allow farmers and growers to deal more directly with the consumers themselves. We need to do that efficiently, so that we do not end up with white vans and lots of capital investment on every farm. But I think there are ways of doing that through processing hubs and good distribution networks, and that could be revolutionary in ensuring that fresh food is available affordably and does not always have to go through the normal retail chains.
Colin Clark
Q
Jack Ward: Yes. I think the fear from a grower point of view is that it just drives the price even lower. The real concern, if they are going to compete ultimately on price, is what that will do to the pressures in terms of trying to produce food in a sensible, balanced and economic kind of way. It does open up new opportunities, undoubtedly, but the big issue is whether it just moves even more of the grocery market into the discount sector. I think that is the real concern.
Helen Browning: The problem with the discount sector is not that it pays less to farmers, but that they are taking less margin themselves, and therefore the mainstream supermarkets feel they need to match those prices, and they squeeze harder. I actually think that a lot of the discount sector can be very helpful for farmers. Ocado and Amazon can work well for smaller-scale producers. As a producer myself, I sell a lot of stuff through Ocado, because it is very straightforward. They will list stuff very easily and they can have more Stock Keeping Units. Therefore they can offer a much wider range of produce than your mainstream supermarket can, so there are opportunities there. The threat is in the competitive pressure that is exerted on those big four supermarkets, which are still where the majority of food is sold.
Sandy Martin
Q
Helen Browning: I would like to think so because that is the other bit of the jigsaw. We are looking here at the production end and particularly at the support elements for farmers. We are not looking at the trade environment, which is going to impact hugely on this, and we are not looking at what is going to happen at the market end or at what will happen through the rest of the supply chain.
In an ideal world, we will be looking at all these bits of the jigsaw together and seeing how they fit together. It is very hard to get this bit of it right with only that base camp in terms of how we will affect farmers’ support into the future. We have no idea of the levels of support that there will be, and that is obviously a factor. The need for it will be influenced by what happens to the trade environment and the market more widely.
It is kind of tricky to do this. What I would ask, given that we do not have that clarity, is that we give broad powers and start to think about the targets. Introducing targets into the Bill would actually give us some destination point and allow the powers to be used in the right way, depending on what else comes through over the next year or so.
Jack Ward: One of the criticisms I have picked up from talking to producers is the lack of reference to food and the promotion of food in the Bill. I think that the food strategy gives the Government the opportunity to redress that issue and spell out a vision for the food industry in the UK. It is our largest food-manufacturing sector; there are opportunities there—there are economic opportunities—and we seem to be at a really good point to take advantage and capitalise on them. I think the food strategy could be hugely influential and send a really important message of confidence throughout the industry.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Q
Jack Ward: There is a list of things. Research and development is massively important—there is no access to ready-made solutions for the problems faced by a lot of relatively small crops, so they are invariably looking for solutions to problems, and research and development is absolutely vital.
There is also capital investment, and a good case in point at the moment is the replacement of seasonal and casual labour. How are we going to manage that? We are going to be looking at robotics—I think that the timescale is 10 years out, but that kind of thing is going to be really important. On skills and labour, which follows on from the whole seasonal labour piece, we probably need to be investing more into labour and encouraging more labour from UK sources for both seasonal and—more importantly—full-time activities.
There is also the issue of productivity and help with technical support. Often, growers are faced with a barrage of issues, from health and safety to issues relating to the groceries supply code of practice. Their ability to absorb every technical wrinkle that they need to know can be quite limited, so I think technical support would be pretty important, too.
Helen Browning: I agree that there is no real clear provision in the Bill for support for R&D. I ask in particular for more support for farmers to do their own research. The work we have done with things like Innovative Farmers has been incredibly successful and very cost-effective in getting both knowledge transfer and trials done more professionally by farmers themselves.
Quite rightly, we talk a lot about fruit and veg, but agro forestry, which might also take us to biomass, nuts and timber production—there was a question in an earlier session about forestry—could be a hugely helpful way of squaring a number of circles. I would like some provision for that.
On the point about skills and advice, it is important to have good advice to assist farmers through the transition they will have to make, but it needs to be de-linked from companies that are trying to sell products to those farmers. Too much advice that farmers take is from companies that have products to sell. We need an independent advisory service available to farmers, so that they are assisted through the big changes they will have to make. We think that farmers have all the skills they need, whether for horticulture or for the delivery of public goods, but a lot of farmers—I am one of them—will have a lot to learn, and we will need some help with that. We need good, independent support.
Craig Tracey
Q
Jack Ward: Quite a lot of the existing scheme is well worth carrying across. Some of the disciplines that it imposes are good, such as the requirements for a formal structure and for collaboration. The match funding element is good. There is not too much wrong with the categories under which you can claim grant aid, although there are issues about what proportion of the grant falls into which category.
The area that probably needs most attention is the issue around marketing: what is the interpretation of the PO role in marketing? I think I mentioned that we have reached a situation where, when doing online tendering, it is quite difficult for someone to argue that they have done the correct proportion of their activity on marketing when, in fact, it took somebody a morning to prepare an online tender, they won the tender and that was the end of it for a year. It is a question of looking at it and making it more UK-centric, reflecting what happens in the UK as opposed to what happens in some parts of Europe.
The Chair
Q
Jack Ward: We welcome the provisions on producer organisations. We look forward to a constructive discussion about how we can build on where we have got to and develop something really good that works for growers and consumers in future. I am looking forward to having that discussion. I hope it takes place—it would probably be in several months rather than immediately, but it is really important.
The Chair
If you go out of here and kick yourselves and think, “Oh gosh, I wish I’d said that,” you can always write to the Committee.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Helen Browning: Yes, I would like there to be an organic conversion scheme and ongoing payments for organic farmers in recognition of the public goods that they continue to deliver. That is a very cost-effective way for money to be deployed. It would be really helpful.
We are languishing right at the bottom, now, of the European league table in terms of the amount of food that is produced in this country that is organic, compared with our neighbours. There is so much potential, with what is happening in places such as Italy. Italy is 15% organic now. It is remarkable: in public procurement schemes in Copenhagen, 75% of the food must be organic that goes into schools and hospitals. So many countries have really got behind it, and it is a really good vehicle for change, so I would like to see that as a key part of the proposition going forward. That will help to move us in that direction of net zero emissions, biodiversity regenerating, diverse food supply and getting rid of pesticides. I think all of those things would be hugely helped if we were to give more support to the organic sector.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Helen Browning: We are really struggling in some areas in particular. Arable crops and protein crops for feed, in particular, are in very short supply in the UK. We could triple or quadruple the amount we produce—probably more than that—and still not meet the market demand here; so there is a big opportunity.
It does require some structural changes for those big arable farms that are currently probably not thinking about it. They need to be thinking about reintroducing, probably, livestock to their farms. It would be a jolly good thing in a lot of those farms in the east of England. So there are some structural issues, but I think a real focus on encouraging more farmers in, where there is a clear market, would be really helpful. You have got to make sure it is market-led, clearly, but in some areas the market is massively under-supplied. There are great export opportunities too. I think it would be a key part of a vibrant future for the countryside if we were to get behind organic farming more thoroughly —and agroforestry, as I mentioned earlier.
Sandy Martin
Q
Helen Browning: I think it would be helpful because we are in a situation where we do not know so much of what is going to transpire over the next year or two. I think that there will be a huge amount more policy making to do, and this is just the starting point. What we must make sure of, with this Bill, is that it does not close off avenues that we may need open to us, depending on what happens to trade and the Brexit deal itself. It is base camp, and as everything else starts to become a little clearer, I think more consultation, as we start to look at the regulatory framework, would be really helpful.
Jack Ward: From our point of view, I think there is a case for saying that the lack of detail is not a bad thing, given the timescale we are working on and the need for this Bill to be in place before the end of March. The worst thing would be to rush forward with schemes and solutions that had not been properly thought through. We work very closely with DEFRA on the development of schemes, and in our experience it is really important that those who are going to operate them at ground level are part and parcel of the development process, because we have seen just how difficult it is to implement some of the EU schemes. God forbid that we go around the buoy of producing schemes that are inoperable, having designed them ourselves. I think there is an onus on all of us to work together to make sure these things work for the benefit of everybody involved, from taxpayer to grower, through to consumer.
Mr Dunne
Q
Jack Ward: Yes, I think public procurement would be really helpful; but we have to recognise that we only produce a percentage of the total requirement. Inevitably, there are periods of the year, or there are crops, where it is not that easy to get locally grown produce, simply because it does not exist. We need to factor that in to our thinking. It is all very well to say, at a design level, “Yes, wouldn’t it be great if you specified that it had to be British?”, but eight out of 10 tomatoes are imported, so, by definition, they will not be local.
Mr Dunne
Q
Helen Browning: I was surprised that soils were not mentioned explicitly in the list of public goods. As I said earlier, it mentions land but not soil. You are right that, on an R&D front, there is still a lot to learn on the biology side, but there is a lot that is already known that could be implemented quite quickly.
I was surprised because the Minister has been so vocal about soils. I would like to ensure that it is absolutely core within the Bill, that we are specific about that and that we start to set ourselves some targets for reversing the decline in our soil, particularly in the organic matter levels in our soil.
Craig Tracey
Q
Helen Browning: Jack may want to come in on this as well. Generally, it would be about moving into more rotational farming systems, which is usually integrating grassland with growing cover crops. Reducing tillage can sometimes help, although it is not always the way through. Some of the agroforestry opportunities are there too. Rotational farming systems usually improve soil health.
Another is making sure that manures and other inputs are going back on to the soil. One of the things that I have a complete hysteria about is the burning of straw for fuel, when it should be going back to the land—that carbon should be going back to the land. It is about making sure that carbon-based inputs are being recycled into our soils and that we are not damaging those soils by over-heavy machinery, which is a big problem—I am looking forward to the days of little robots running around doing our work for us, rather than all the great machines that are crushing our soils to death—or about leaving soils bare over the winter or even during the summer months.
There is a whole host of well-known factors. A lot of those come together, obviously, within an organic farming system, which is demonstrated to have much higher levels of soil organic matter on average, which is the key indicator that we are looking at in our soil. We know how to do some of those basics.
Moving towards targets for soils at a farm level is difficult, because every soil type is different and will have different capabilities, so we need to be careful about how we use the metrics. We know enough about what husbandry methods we need to be encouraging, however. Good mixed farming is a good place to start.
Deidre Brock
Q
Secondly, for the Soil Association, I met your associates in Edinburgh, and they suggested that part of the problem with food security is the lack of security of supply of things such as fertiliser, and that true food security depends on a supply chain. Is there anything in the Bill that suggests to you that food security issues are being addressed?
Jack Ward: Most horticultural production falls outside the common agricultural policy, and traditionally it hasn’t been supported. It is very much about what sort of income you can generate from that production. I think that changes in the CAP and in funding, and the switch to public goods, probably will not impact that very greatly. The demand for seasonal labour will be there all the while people are sufficiently confident to keep investing in production in the UK.
Deidre Brock
Could you repeat that last bit?
Jack Ward: One of the big issues about the availability of seasonal labour is the continuing investment in production in the UK. What is happening at the moment is that, because of the uncertainty, everybody is just holding back on what they are prepared to invest and what they are prepared to do in the future. The last thing we want is to see some of that production move to where the labour is, whether in another part of Europe, northern Africa or wherever it happens to be.
Helen Browning: There is lots of talk about food security, and it is used in a number of ways by a number of people. I do not think food security is the same as saying that we need to produce it all here; sometimes food security might be sourcing from a number of different places, because they might not have the same climatic disaster at the same time. It might be about storage. I think that we need to use that phrase with some caution.
At the same time, the Bill de-links the production of food from the funding that will come to farmers—that is a very important dislocation that is being made. Currently, if you are in receipt of public money, you are required to produce food, effectively. You will no longer be required to do that, as I understand it from the Bill. The import of that needs to be thought through clearly. I think it is the right approach, because I do not think you should force farmers to produce food that people are not paying an adequate amount for—they would be running loss-making businesses. Over time, we need to take a view as to what sort of food system we want, how much food we should produce here, and how much we are prepared to offshore our environmental or social responsibilities to other countries in order that they feed us. These are big societal debates that we need to have, but we need to be very clear that what the Bill does is saying, “We pay you for environmental goods; you don’t any longer have to produce food to claim those payments.”
Chris Davies
Q
Jack Ward: We are particularly interested in the producer organisation—it is really important that we do not end up with four schemes. It will be a nightmare if we end up having to face four different directions and four different regulating authorities.
Chris Davies
Do you agree, Ms Browning?
Helen Browning: Absolutely—I think that the more unity we have on these things, the better. Life is going to get complicated enough, so I urge collaboration wherever we can find it.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Ward and Ms Browning. We are indebted to you for the time and effort that you put into coming to see us.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Iain Stewart.)
Agriculture Bill (Fourth sitting)
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. For the benefit of the Official Report, would you be kind enough to identify yourselves, please?
Professor Marsden: I am Professor Terry Marsden from Cardiff University.
Vicki Hird: I am Vicki Hird, from Sustain: the alliance for better food and farming.
David Baldock: I am David Baldock, from the Institute for European Environmental Policy.
Professor Millstone: Good afternoon. My name is Erik Millstone, and I am based at the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
Q
Vicki Hird: We very much welcome that move—we have been calling for it for a long time. We would make sure that it enables payments that can deliver a truly sustainable farming and food system, so that it delivers good, healthy and affordable food to people as near as possible to where they are. We would look for a broadening of the payments to make sure that people can actually afford food locally in local markets. We think that the outcome has to be measurable and the payments have to be accessible.
We have talked about having some sort of way in which governance can be defined at local or even regional level, so that you are both covering landscape or catchment-scale outcomes where possible, and making sure that you are truly covering the environmental outcomes that we need to see, including on climate change. That means covering not just edge-of-field features that might be very visible, but also making sure to cover in-field farming systems. We would like to see an outcome that supports agro-ecological systems, such as organic and whole-farm systems that truly look in the field to tackle some of the worst pollution and environmental problems.
The Chair
Professor Millstone, you are nodding. Would you like to come in on that?
Professor Millstone: I think that the move away from area payments is entirely sound, but the current interpretation of the notion of a public good seems to me to be far too narrow. It certainly does include those things currently on the agenda of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I think it ought to include, in particular, stability of supplies and prices. While there have been—and there remain—many problems with the common agricultural policy, it has at any rate ensured relative stability of supplies and prices. EU consumers have been paying a premium above world market prices, but they have been getting stability. World market prices are typically far more volatile than those in the European Union, and I think that there is a need for policy measures to ensure supply and price stability, as well as other things, including improved safety, improved nutrition and, when it comes to sustainability, greater clarity on what is to be sustained.
Professor Marsden: There is a real opportunity to set this in stone—it is almost a bipartisan, non-political issue—and build real consensus around integrated food, agriculture and environmental policy in the rural domain. The short bit of evidence I submitted suggests an amendment at the top of the Bill that would interlock what is already there, which is fine, with questions about food security, self-sufficiency and sustainable production. In 1947, we had principles of efficiency and stability, which are just as significant today, but they have changed their expression. Some key principles like that need to be embedded in the vision of the Bill from the start.
David Baldock: I had the pleasure of producing, with colleagues, a study for the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development—DG AGRI—in the Commission in 2010 on what public goods in agriculture were. It took two years, it was a highly political operation, and we had agricultural economists all over Europe working on it. It is not easy. Intrepid Members might want to look at it.
One of the things we learned was that we must have clear objectives and be clear about what public goods are. They are, by and large, above the regulatory baseline. It is not just about trees and hedges; it is to do with the whole resource base for agriculture and land management. We must be clear about what payments mean. They provide farmers with opportunity costs, as well as other costs. Farmers often perceive public goods as a very unprofitable sideline. Actually, they are much more to do with the holistic management of the farm and the resources beneath it. Maintaining your resources in the long term is important for public good provision.
If you want farmers to take this seriously, they need to know that there is money behind it. Perhaps we can come back to that. They need to know that this is a long-term policy direction, not just a short-term measure. Otherwise, it is difficult for them to have confidence in it.
You need some means of measuring the outcome. Clearly, that involves having a monitoring process and some confidence about the indicators you are talking about. At the end of the day, public goods need to be visible and understandable to people. They are just shorthand for policy makers; we need to make the benefits clear to the whole world.
George Eustice
Q
Professor Millstone: Part 4 strikes me as essentially being about therapeutic responses to crises that have already emerged, whereas I think it makes much more sense to have a more prophylactic, preventive approach, and to take measures in advance of crises to ensure stability. Although the area payments are decoupled, they none the less reduce total costs for producers, so they contribute to the maintenance of farm incomes and give incentives to remain actively producing food.
There have been mechanisms that have operated to stabilise prices in UK agricultural markets, which did not have the adverse effects characteristic of the common agricultural policy—the creation of large surpluses. The deficit payment system, which applied in the UK before we joined the European Economic Community, gave farmers a minimum price for commodities, but only for products that they produced and found a buyer for, so it stabilised prices and farm incomes but did not generate surpluses.
Vicki Hird: We want clause 1 to ensure that farms can continue. One of the ways it should do that is to ensure that the farming system is resilient and robust against the shocks that might hit it. That would include ensuring that the natural base is healthy—the soil, the water and the animals, as system-based resilience factors. It also should ensure that they are diversified if possible, ensuring that they are fulfilling the potential to have import substitution in areas such as horticulture.
We are keen to have a public health purpose in that section, which I do not think is strong enough yet. We are calling for a public health clause because we see a great benefit in boosting the sectors that are good for public health and changing the sectors that are not. That will mean diversifying and making the farming system more able to withstand shocks, because farmers will not be putting all their eggs—to use the wrong phrase—in one basket.
George Eustice
Q
Professor Millstone: It is not just about stabilising farm incomes, but about ensuring adequate supplies for consumers. Futures markets, insurance and so on can create what is conceived of as virtual stocks, but you cannot eat virtual stocks—you can only eat real food. Therefore, you have to have mechanisms to ensure that there is an adequate supply of real food available, and not just financial instruments.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Vicki Hird: We have suggested two additions to clause 1 to deliver a truly sustainable farming Act, which is what we want. We want to bring public health and agro-ecological whole farm systems, such as organic, to the fore.
One of the fundamental things that we think the Committee and MPs need to drive—I feel slightly emotional being here because you have such an incredible opportunity and a responsibility in your hands—is to make the Bill far more robust in terms of duties. One of its weaknesses is enabling; we all said it would be an enabling Bill and the Government do not want their hands tied. As a result, we are extremely concerned that after a few years when there are pressures on the Treasury, there will not be the money to do the kinds of things that we have identified externally as absolutely essential but that the Government have not.
These are things that we know need to happen: we know we need to tackle climate change, soil erosion, animal health and welfare, antibiotic use and obesity. They are all big crises that we need to deliver on, but there is no obligation in the Bill to tackle those things. Ministers want to, but it could all fall apart. It would be adding duties and the responsibility to do those things and the ability to draw down a budget against assessment of needs from all those things, so that the Bill delivers the truly sustainable, healthy, nature-friendly farming that we know we can deliver—a lot of farmers are doing it. The Bill could be truly great if it had those duties, rather than lots of enabling.
We would also like clause 25 on fair dealing to be strengthened. We are really pleased to see it there but we have some specific amendments to it, which we can provide the Committee, on ensuring that it provides the confidentiality for people who need to complain about bad treatment and that it covers all sectors. Again, the duty of the Secretary of State to deliver the new fair dealing measure is crucial, for the reasons that Mr Eustice described, to ensure that farmers can have confidence in the market.
Professor Marsden: To add another issue, on the question of how to improve the Bill, there is nothing in it about rural development, which is important. This is an opportunity to link multifunctional farming, which seems to be where we are heading, with rural development. I am suggesting not the development of a second pillar necessarily but, for example, for the recipients of financing and whatever funding there is not to be restricted to farmers alone. It could go to partnerships, place-based partnerships—some good pilots of which are going on in England and in Wales—and consortiums of landowners and stakeholders in rural areas to work together.
That is the other shift we need—in the mentality of funding for public goods. Rural development forms a gap in that. One might argue that that could be left to whatever comes out of the shared prosperity fund. I am, though, concerned about that, because it might lead to concentrated dollops of funding—to cities mainly—and we really need much more distributed, bottom-up and facilitative funding for things like a post-Brexit LEADER programme.
David Baldock: First, to follow up on that and to amplify what Vicki said about duties as well as powers, I noticed that the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee pointed out that 36 clauses in the Bill confer 26 powers on Ministers, but include hardly any duties. At the moment there is a duty on the Government to introduce and operate agri-environment schemes, but even that duty is going. We are actually moving backwards on duties.
Secondly, on the budget issue, I understand that the Treasury does not like to have its hands tied and so forth, but we are in a position here that there is no guarantee whatever of multi-annual funding for agriculture. Lots of sectors have special pleading here, but the fact is that farmers do not work on a CSR—corporate social responsibility—cycle; they are not investing on that timescale. Therefore, either in the Bill or through some parallel commitment, it is important—there is a lot of sectoral join-up here on the environment and farming sides—to have some kind of forward-looking structure. That is not just a five or 10-year agreement for an individual farmer, but some sense of where things are going for the industry and infrastructure, and how we are going to meet future Government objectives.
Thirdly—a point that has not come up yet—at the moment the Bill contains nothing about the regulatory baseline, the environmental baseline, for agriculture in future. I understand that that might come forward in separate legislation, such as the environment Bill, but it might not—that Bill might not happen. There is the possibility, which is slightly more than theoretical, that farmers take up the de-linking option, the payment option, under the scheme, therefore finding themselves outside cross-compliance and outside good agricultural environment condition, which means that the baseline in those circumstances—without having a position in law—will be weakened. In fact, we could go back from where we are now. Good agricultural environment condition is a very important part of cross-compliance. It was our major means of protecting soil, so it is the only means of protecting soil through the public sector at the moment. I want to emphasise—although we all know this—that it is a key area that should not be forgotten.
The Chair
Professor Millstone, do you want add anything to that?
Professor Millstone: I agree with my colleagues.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
Q
Vicki Hird: That is a good point. My experience over the past few months, discussing this, is of an unnecessarily divided and polarised debate. Clause 1(1), done well and given the resources and infrastructure to deliver—it is absolutely essential to make sure we have adequate resources for training and advice for farmers that links to their business planning—could deliver a farm support scheme that does not separate out the two and that genuinely supports farmers for being farmers and for producing food or other products of the land or for doing agroforestry or forestry, and for doing that in a way that is sustainable. That really is the prize of the Bill, and it should be. It should be built into the new environmental land management scheme.
I am very keen to make sure that that scheme provides the tools for all farmers, not just those who are already doing these things and who are very clever at filling in forms. It must be available to small farmers as well as large farmers, it must be accessible, and it must facilitate farmers to work in cross-farm, landscape-scale, catchment-scale farming schemes, but it must actually be about farming.
The false dichotomy has probably been set up by the fact that there are two subsections where you could have merged the two. From our perspective, the alternative view is to make clause 1(2), which is about productivity, very much connected with clause 1(1), so that any payment for productivity does not undermine the outcomes from clause 1(1)—the public goods that you are also paying for. That would be clunky, but from our members’ perspective—and we have a broad membership—the feeling is that that could be an option.
The final point to mention is the de-linking payments. There is a real risk in terms of public acceptance of the de-linking payments if potentially very large sums of money are going to farmers for no outcome at all for the taxpayer. We can see the need for de-linking in some form, or for some tool to make the break between the old system and the new, but you could be getting something more out of that—I think you will probably hear about that a bit later—and be making sure that it actually delivers on new entrants or diversification or sustainable investment, so farmers can invest in machinery such as small robots, or new, truly welfare-friendly housing, and those kinds of things, and that it is actually directed towards those kinds of outcomes.
The dichotomy is false, and we should not be thinking of it like that, but I can see why it has happened.
Colin Clark
Q
Professor Marsden: One suggestion in my amendment was that, right at the start, you have interlinked and interlocking objectives: promoting farming and food systems for ecologically restoring and protecting the environment, delivering resilient forms of food production and supply, which enhances food security, and improving quality food access, consumer choice and public health benefits. If you put those three things together, rather than in separate subsections, what that conveys is that any financing would have to pass those integrated tests. On the ground, that would effectively mean that it would be re-linking production in many respects. No public financing would be given unless sustainable production was leading to environmental gain or environmental restoration. It is not either/or; it is both together. A lot of research shows that we have spent 20 or 30 years developing very complicated environmental initiatives and processes, but they have been separated from agricultural practice. This is the opportunity to say, “No, we want agricultural practice to be central to delivering on environmental gains.” That is a message that needs to be put right at the start of the Bill.
Dr Drew
Q
Professor Marsden: Clearly, that is an institutional question. There are a lot of institutional questions that this implies that may not eventually need to go into the Bill, but it does obviously have institutional implications.
In my view, all of this is leading to more place-based systems of integrated management of land and the biosphere. One way or another, with bottom-up partnerships or with some level of regional sensitivity, we have to manage regional diversity in the land base of the UK. That means the landholders and stakeholders being fostered to come together in different ways, not necessarily through a top-down, dirigiste infrastructure, but to develop whole tracts of land—not just a farm, but whole regions—such that we have catchments and regions that are much more sustainable and that are delivering the big goals on climate change as well as individual farm landscape. There is a big institutional challenge here to get local diversity and regional diversity at the heart of these sorts of policies.
David Baldock: As you said, the Bill does not spell out how the policy would work. We are all wondering how that might operate, and there have been some indications in a separate paper. This is clearly a source of uncertainty at the moment; you have powers with less specificity about how they are used. In principle, the public goods frame provides a good framework for delivering the right outcomes in the uplands or elsewhere, but it would be helpful to spell out how that will be met and how the local dynamics, which Terry talked about, can be matched with national objectives as well. If we look at the implications of the 1.5 degree target for the UK and for the world, we find that agriculture will have to make pretty significant changes over the next 20 years to the way soil carbon is managed and to the way energy is used in agriculture. That means that you need some strategic vision of where agriculture and land management are going, and you need to spell that out in a series of objectives a bit more clearly so that we do not have a slightly random selection of public goods that are produced according to local whims. I very much support the bottom-up approach, but that must be balanced by some quite clear strategic goals—we know we have them, but they have not been incorporated in a way we can see yet.
Vicki Hird: To add something on your question on institutions, David, we do not currently have the capacity to do that—the capacity is quite atomised. There is a lot of really good stuff on agri-environment, nature and conservation that is not doing the job adequately, because it has not got the capacity. We need to build that up, and it would have to fit with the vision, as David said.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Q
Professor Marsden: In a sense, it is fair for them to make that assumption at the moment. The message to get across to farmers’ interests is that it needs to be in there, but it needs to be there in a different way. We need to encourage a transition in the UK towards much more sustainable types of farming and towards the production of food of a healthier sort, which creates health benefits for consumers. It is not business as usual here—the point is that it cannot be business as usual for agriculture post Brexit—but neither is it simply an environmental agenda. That is why I say we need agriculture plus environment at the centre of this.
Chris Davies
Q
Professor Marsden: I think the two go in tandem. You categorise us as environmentalists, but I do not think that is true at all.
Chris Davies
I am going by your biog.
Professor Marsden: Yes, but we have worked a lot on looking at ways in which agriculture can deliver. It is 98% of land use here, so we have to encourage all farmers to think about public benefits in health and environmental terms. I am not saying that they do not, but why do we not empower them more to do so? Why do we not create the post-war agricultural committees in local areas again to reconsider what a good farmer is. In the 1940s and 1950s, we created the idea that a good farmer takes out hedges and practises economies of scale. We now need a new concept of what good farming and small farming is. There are some great examples of that in the UK, such as the Pasture-Fed Livestock Association. There are all sorts of things going on, so we can feed on excellence. We need demonstration farms.
Chris Davies
Q
The Chair
No, take over.
David Baldock: I fully confess to having “environment” in my organisation’s title, and to being interested in the environment. I have spent quite a lot of the last 30 years working for DG AGRI in Brussels, so I have some familiarity with the farming community. I can understand why farmers worry about the lack of warm words about agriculture and food production in the Bill. It is a pretty dry Bill, and it does not give that signal.
When it comes to the actual substance, whether it is here or in Europe as a whole, the future of agriculture policy is about agriculture, environment, sustainability and public goods. That is as true in any other part of Europe as it is in the UK. That is where the direction of travel is going, and there are good reasons for that. Farmers know that if they are to keep receiving public money, it will be on the basis that they are delivering public goods. There has to be a deal between the public expectation—that that is what the money is for—and the absolute value of farming and food production per se. I do not think that the environmental people, who may be over-represented right now, should apologise for being important voices—loud voices, anyway—in the debate, because it has become so central to agricultural policy everywhere.
Vicki Hird: I am a pest management expert by background. I studied how to tackle pests on farms, but obviously my background is about looking at all aspects of farming—the integration of health, farming, environmental and social goals. That is what I have always worked on, and I see the Bill as an opportunity to do that. That is why I was saying that I was quite emotional, because I think the Bill could do that. It is a shame when it is put in a polarised way. A lot of statements from farming groups such as the Pasture-Fed Livestock Association, the Nature Friendly Farming Network and Linking Environment and Farming were very positive about the direction of travel represented in the Bill.
It would be great if you could go and visit these things. I went to a three-day festival called Groundswell in Hertfordshire, and there were a load of farmers there doing things very differently. They are not just tweaking the system; they are genuinely looking at how they can reduce soil erosion and enhance biodiversity on farms through the farm system. That is the kind of system we need to be supporting. We should understand that it is the future, because it is building in carbon into the soil and ensuring biodiversity benefits for the farm.
That is the kind of thing that this farm Bill—it is a farm Bill—should do. As Tom Lancaster said on Tuesday, most of the rest of the Bill relates to farming. One of the crucial elements of it is the fair dealing part. I have said that it needs to be strengthened, but it is great that it is there. The new statutory contracts are absolutely vital to ensure farmers get a fair deal, and the transparency is vital to ensure they understand how they can get a fair deal in the marketplace.
The big gap, which I forgot to mention when you asked for gaps, Mr Drew, is the trade deals and agrifood imports element. Most stakeholders are in complete agreement that we need to be able to control the import of agrifood produce that is coming in at lower standards. I am sure you have covered that elsewhere. We have got a clause, which we are all promoting, that is saying that. I do not know whether that is out of order or not. That is an essential gap, and it makes a difference to farmers. It is another farming-relevant part of the Bill that we would like to see. Sorry, I went slightly off-topic there.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Q
“The Secretary of State may give financial assistance”,
so we do not know whether he will decide to give financial assistance to any or all of these things, but we do know that it does not say that he may give any financial assistance to the production of healthy food in a sustainable way. Is that something that you would like to see in the Bill?
Professor Marsden: That is why I tabled my amendment for a longer first clause that integrates those things so that it interlocks them. The point is not that it is the environment over and above agriculture, farming or food, but all three. This Agriculture Bill should be projecting the integration of those three priorities because they are all priorities and they are all interlinked—you cannot really have one without the other. That is the critical point, from which the rest of the Bill could be much more specified in duties and so on. It is the principal thing that needs to be right at the start. I think that it is important that the Bill gives the vision.
This is a 1947 moment; I was not around then—not many of us were— but we have all read about what happened. This is a clean sheet in terms of taking back control and delivering a much more self-sufficient, sustainable food system for the UK as a whole. So take the opportunity—that is my advice.
Professor Millstone: I certainly agree that the Bill addresses certain aspects of farming, but clearly the National Farmers Union thinks that there are rather important aspects that are not mentioned. As my colleague Professor Marsden says, it is almost completely in abstraction from food, which there is nothing about.
May I please briefly go back to David Drew’s question about institutions and pick up on Vicki’s point about education and training and Terry’s about the need for transformation? Previously, we had the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, which performed two important functions. First, it disseminated information and knowledge about innovations and new products and processes to farmers. But it also performed a second function, which was gathering information from farmers about the problems to which they would like solutions that the research and development on innovations could provide. When ADAS was abolished, it was essentially replaced by a commercial marketing and sales system, and that second function disappeared in the UK. It remains present in Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria and many other countries, which accounts for why their agriculture is both more productive and more sustainable than UK agriculture. There is scope for important institutional development in that regard.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Q
Vicki Hird: We do not have a position on that—it would be hard for me to say whether we would advocate for grouse moors. I understand that clauses on active farmers, food producers and those gaining financial reward from production of goods from the land are being mooted. I think that would restrict the Bill somewhat and make it very inflexible in supporting systems that can do both in a very extensive way. I am not necessarily talking about grouse moors here; I suppose I am thinking more about extensive livestock in a system that has other huge benefits in carbon capture or tourism. If land is producing not a huge amount of food but a bit of food, and the Bill restricts that, that would not necessarily be a good thing.
The important distinction is that we would not be advocating payments purely for being a farmer on an acre basis. In answer to Sandy’s question as well as yours, we do not think that that would be a good outcome for farmers, the taxpayer or the environment. What is in the Bill is a skeleton, which needs to be built on, and we certainly think that there needs to be an extra clause relating to agri-ecological systems such as organic, to make sure that we can cover them and very small producers. You mentioned small producers. It is really important to get rid of the cut-off, because there are some very small, very productive producers who should benefit from any possible public good payment. I will leave it there.
Professor Marsden: We clearly have a big issue here in what we are saying about the uplands. They are never going to be agriculturally productive in this sense, and they will need support for landscape purposes, amenity and so on. This is a very important element and one of the reasons why I stress this whole issue of the rural economy.
The economy in the uplands is governed not by agriculture but by all sorts of other activities, not least the public sector, which is very significant in rural areas. I think we have to look at upland agricultural systems in a completely new light. We have to look at ways in which we can support them in delivering for the rural economy, as well as for the environment.
Over the last few years we have done some research in Wales which has shown that, okay, there may be some scare stories about cuts in subsidies for hill farmers, but if you look at the amount of household income, not farm business income, many hill farmers are generating a lot of income from non-agricultural activities. They are reliant on non-agricultural income for their household income. There is a lot of cost transfer from different members of the household into upland farm households. That is something we should be encouraging. We should encourage more multifunctional farms in upland areas, which can attract visitors and fulfil more amenity purposes. Again, the Bill provides a real opportunity, not a threat, to our extensive upland areas across the UK.
David Baldock: I think the public goods record of some grouse moors is highly controversial; some of the management practices of grouse moors would not score very high in the public goods test. It is more likely, as Terry has been saying, that money will go into mixtures of agriculture and forestry—agri-forestry—and different patterns in the uplands, producing more return for farmers and land managers, rather than be switched out of the land environment. I do not think that is likely to happen on a significant scale, no.
Deidre Brock
Q
Vicki Hird: If it was only for the active farmer and food production; if that was the only basis on which you could get any support at all.
Professor Marsden: A key word here is “productivity”, isn’t it? That needs to be in the Bill, but we need a broader definition of what we mean by productivity. We can see—we have evidence—that we can get productivity out of small agri-ecological farms. You can create demand for labour out of those activities. You can create much more work. So we need to redefine the notion of productivity in a much broader way to cope with this variation across the agricultural landscape in the UK.
Vicki Hird: Yes, because they might be producing good carbon capture. There are other ways of measuring.
George Eustice
Q
David Baldock: The main difficulty with the current CAP regime is its bias towards control of very often the wrong thing—micromanagement of farm boundaries and of the way data is gathered and reported. Instead of getting the big picture of what is happening on a farm and how it is complying with its broad obligations, we have a highly burdensome system that, at the end of the day, does not really add a lot of value to the public purse or public transparency. It would be very welcome if the Government were able to shift that whole delivery system so that it focused on real outcomes and was more farmer friendly.
I was involved in the beginning of the cross-compliance discussion in Brussels. At that time, the whole idea was to take out the very worst farmers—to put under scrutiny people who committed large-scale abuse of livestock and so forth. It has become a micromanagement tool for worrying about individual farmers, with ear tags for livestock and a whole process around that. It has completely disappeared into a bureaucratic process. There is a great opportunity here to change that culture and delivery system.
The Chair
There is a lot of nodding going on, but Hansard cannot report nods, so I have to place them on the record for you. I am afraid we are out of time. Professor Millstone, David Baldock, Vicki Hird and Professor Marsden, thank you very much indeed for joining us. We are most grateful to you.
Examination of Witnesses
Diana Holland and Ed Hamer gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now take evidence from Unite and the Landworkers’ Alliance. We have until 3.15 pm, so slightly under half an hour, I am afraid. Will you introduce yourselves for the record, please?
Diana Holland: I am Diana Holland, assistant general secretary at Unite with responsibility for, among other things, food, drink and agriculture.
Ed Hamer: I am Ed Hamer. I am a farmer and policy officer for the Landworkers’ Alliance.
Dr Drew
Q
Diana Holland: We see it as a fantastic opportunity, but at the moment it is a big missed opportunity. We have been calling for a strategy for agriculture that looks at the whole food supply chain for a long time. What is missing from the Bill is any recognition of the agriculture workforce. A whole lot of things have happened to agricultural workers in recent times. There are ways in which they are protected internationally, because they are recognised as a particularly vulnerable workforce. If you look at the most recent report by the director of labour market enforcement, he includes agriculture among high-risk sectors. While a number of bodies are dealing with the most extreme ends, it is really important that the workforce are included in a strategy for agriculture going forward. We are very supportive of the need to look for a positive way forward, but we have proposals and suggestions for how that could include the workforce.
Ed Hamer: I echo those comments. Our members certainly find the proposal on the table progressive. We have a couple of concerns. We would like the Bill to be more supportive of the actual production of food—particularly healthy, affordable food for local and regional markets. We also have genuine concerns, which were echoed by some MPs on Second Reading, that nature-friendly farming could displace active farmers who produce high-quality food. Although we understand that food itself cannot be listed as a public good, we strongly believe that access to healthy and affordable locally produced food can and should be recognised as a public good in the Bill.
Dr Drew
Q
Diana Holland: We think a clause should be added that specifically recognises the need to protect standards for agricultural workers. Sustain is supporting an amendment, which we would be happy to be attached to, on the kind of protections that the former Agricultural Wages Board provided. We recognise that this is a framework Bill and there are different ways of expressing things, but in the absence of anything at all we would want something very specific to be added that would recognise that matter. This is meant to be dealing with Brexit, and the treaty of Rome specifically says in article 39 that there should be a fair standard of living for workers in agriculture.
We have seen with the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board in England a deterioration in pay. You would expect us to say that; we are trade union representatives. We have collected evidence from our membership that in the year after the abolition, 56% of those surveyed had not had a pay rise. Of those who had had a pay rise, 82% had had it imposed, and of those who had not had a pay rise, one third had gone to their employer to ask for a pay rise and been refused. A series of people formerly covered by the Agricultural Wages Board in England have had their pay completely frozen until the national minimum wage catches up with it, whereas in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland that is not the case.
In fact, just this month, the estate agent and land management advisers Strutt & Parker said in Farmers Weekly:
“It is difficult to justify suggesting that English employers should pay their employees less than they would receive if working in Wales—particularly given the shortages in skilled labour the sector is facing.”
They have recommended pay rises of 2.5% to 3.5% to deal with what is happening in England. That is a very specific example, but the unintended consequence—or perhaps, given the estimates made at the time, a recognised consequence—of the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board is that conditions on not just pay but sickness, holidays and all the other things that were protected are deteriorating. We are extremely concerned, and there is an opportunity in this Bill to look at what is happening. If we are going to deliver decent agricultural production for the future, we need workers who are recognised and remunerated effectively. Without that, we are in serious danger of not being able to deliver in the way we should.
Ed Hamer: We see a clear opportunity for improvement in clause 1(1), and we have tabled an amendment on agri-ecology. At the moment, the Bill replaces direct payments with environmental land management payments, which in their current form do not guarantee food production in addition to the delivery of public goods.
By contrast, the agri-ecology amendment would focus on holistic farming systems as opposed to set-aside or marginal conservation measures. To give you an example, the payment identified under ELM would pay farmers for income forgone on the field boundaries, whereas in the middle of the field they could continue to spray pesticides or cease farming altogether. With the agri-ecology amendment, the integration of whole farm agriculture and agri-ecological principles would incentivise farmers to produce food on the field in addition to introducing ecological focus areas or diversity around field edges. Under the agri-ecological amendment, it is the farming system itself that delivers the public good.
George Eustice
Agri-ecology and other whole-system disciplines such as agroforestry would be covered and empowered under clause 1. We are considering that, but I would be interested in your views on the key barriers to your members’ setting up and what type of support would be most useful.
Ed Hamer: The majority of our members are farming on smaller acreages, typically anywhere between 1 and 20 hectares. At the moment our biggest challenge is access to markets. Over the last 20 years or so there has been significant under-investment in the infrastructure needed to support small-scale enterprises such as ours; I am thinking of local abattoirs, local creameries, food processing infrastructure, seed networks and things like that. What would really help us is targeted support for local food funding, to recognise the networks and infrastructure required to get the food from the farm to the market.
To give you my example, I farm a community-supported agriculture scheme in Devon, which we started in 2010 without any money. We got a grant from the Big Lottery Fund and were able to invest in polytunnels and the infrastructure required to get our operation up and running, including the machinery that we needed and a delivery vehicle. With that small grant, we managed to build a business over a relatively short amount of time. We are now independent of grant funding.
Our experience teaches us that our members have had similar challenges, but not all have been fortunate enough to secure an initial capital grant. For local food grant funding, seed funding for SME agricultural start-ups would be a fantastic way of getting small enterprises up and running, to the point where they can be financially independent.
George Eustice
Q
Ed Hamer: Access to holdings has been significantly undermined by the BPS, which has, to a certain extent, consolidated land ownership in the UK over the past 10 years. Many of our members struggle to access land because land prices have gone up by about £2,500—depending on the area of the country—since the introduction of the BPS.
We hope that the end of the BPS and area payments will have some knock-on effect on land prices. If not, we see opportunities within the de-linking, if we could make a condition of it that land should be made available to new entrants. Using the county farms estate would be a fantastic opportunity to provide opportunities as the first step on the farming ladder.
George Eustice
Q
Ed Hamer: For many new-entrant farmers, it is quite intimidating to take out a mortgage to buy their own holding and to then try to pay that money back through farming itself. With the county farms estate, there is still the opportunity to rent a small area to start on, even if it does not come with accommodation and is just the land itself, and to then build up a business and a local market for products, to the point where a farmer can start to invest in their own land or find somewhere else to move on to.
As a stepping-stone measure, the county farms estate is a fantastic resource that has so far been under-utilised. It has been very positive to see DEFRA’s soundings on reclaiming that estate for use by new entrants.
Deidre Brock
Q
Ed Hamer: We like to think not. Horticulture is quite a unique example. At the moment, in the UK horticulture receives less than 1% of public funding. Since 2005, horticultural production has declined significantly—veg by 26% and fruit by 35%. At the moment, we import 42% of the vegetables and 89% of the fruit that we consume in the UK.
Post-Brexit there will clearly be an opportunity for renewal within the horticulture sector. We would like to see UK consumers prioritise the high standards that we have here in the UK, and to see a new generation of young farmers access some of that current import market. At the moment, we spend £7.8 billion a year on importing horticultural produce that could otherwise be grown here in the UK. We would like to see an opportunity for new entrants to access that market and use that revenue to generate jobs and employment within the sector. We are certainly worried about the risk of importing fruit and veg from countries with lower environmental and social standards, which would undermine production in the UK.
Diana Holland: We see food standards and safe, healthy food as going hand in hand with decent treatment and professional, high-skilled jobs. All the evidence that we have is that recent food scandals have gone alongside severe labour abuses and exploitation, because workers are fearful of speaking out about what is going on. We very much believe that the Bill needs to cover the race to the bottom in all aspects and build in incentives to treat workers properly and ensure that decent standards are followed. That could be reflected in certain parts of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Q
Diana Holland: If that was true, paying workers less would mean the cost of food would have come down, and it has not. There are pressures; we have been part of various studies and commissions on access to safe, healthy food and the implications on wages. There are links that need to be made. However, we are trying to say that a minimum standard needs to be built in, below which no one should fall. Alongside that, there should be a possibility for all the stakeholders in the industry to come together in the way that used to be done with the Agricultural Wages Board—we recognise that there may be equivalent ways of doing the same thing, as has been done in Wales. All of us who are involved directly in this industry, including the workforce—not excluded and shut out, but part of it—could come together to say, “How should we conduct ourselves so that people are treated fairly, and what happens if the industry is protected?”
I completely recognise that there are issues in the supply chain. Those players all have a part to play, but we need them around the table to discuss that, rather than the current system where workers are extremely isolated in that process, in a way that they were not before. Before, their voices were part of a system, but now, in England specifically, they are not able to access that any more. That has weakened their position—their pay, sickness, holidays and so on. It has not created the improvements that it was claimed it would.
This is an opportunity. This was a very rushed abolition, as part of trying to get rid of red tape. The reality of it has not been a minimisation of red tape; it has just been a reducing of conditions, as we feared and said that it would be. If we really want people to choose to work in this industry and to feel respected in it, we need to do something about that. This is a fantastic opportunity to do just that.
Ed Hamer: Our members are largely self-employed—most of our members manage their own holdings. Consumers need to become more aware of the true cost of production, but the problem lies more in the supply chain: if you go to the supermarket now and spend £1 on produce, farmers receive anywhere between 8p and 20p. The rest goes to the middlemen and the supermarkets. Local food systems demonstrate that if you can reclaim a larger percentage of that food pound, you can generate much higher levels of income on a smaller area. One of our biggest challenges is accessing those local markets so we can reclaim the food pound. Then we can support decent livelihoods on small areas.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
The briefing from the Landworkers Alliance was very useful, particularly the paragraph stating what France has done to move towards a more agro-ecological approach, but I want to ask about the economics. I think agro-ecology is sometimes perceived as being just about caring about the environment, and not about improving farming productivity. Could you say something about the fact that there may be fewer inputs? We heard some evidence—I cannot remember if it was in this Committee or in the EFRA Committee, which is also looking at the Bill—about how taking some of the land out of production and using it to increase biodiversity, through pollinators and that sort of thing, can increase food yields. Is that just nice to have or could it make farming more productive?
Ed Hamer: The agro-ecological principle is a whole-farm approach; it does not take fields one at a time in individual focus areas, but looks at the inputs to the farm as a whole, as you say. Anything you can do to reduce dependence on external inputs will have not only a beneficial environmental impact but a beneficial economic impact on the farming system. Examples from our membership demonstrate how mixed farms used cereals for livestock bedding and then manure to fertilise the cereals. They used waste from the horticultural enterprise to feed a pig or poultry enterprise alongside. So by being sensible with food waste, in particular, on the farm, you can recycle those inputs and then essentially cut your losses through that margin.
On food waste, it is also worth bearing in mind that small farms tend to be much more concerned about and aware of what food is being wasted. Again, going back to local marketing, consumers are much more willing to accept food of a slightly lesser cosmetic appearance when dealing with local markets, compared with what you can sell through to the supermarkets. So there are a number of economic and environmental justifications for the agro-ecological farming system. Those are just a few of them; I can come back to you with more afterwards.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
Q
Ed Hamer: Could you repeat the thrust of the question?
Trudy Harrison
You referred to how we can essentially shorten supply chains, and your answer seemed to be focused on de-linking opportunities. I am keen to understand the opportunities for existing farms—particularly family farms—in upland and lowland areas.
Ed Hamer: My experience is from growing up on Dartmoor, where at the moment many of the farms are entirely dependent on the subsidy to survive. What they would like is to follow our model in terms of accessing those local markets, but the nearest abattoir is 25 to 30 miles away—there used to be one five to 10 miles away. If there was a nearer abattoir or a co-operatively managed meat hanging facility where they could store meat after it has been to the abattoir and then bring it back for processing within the local community, thereby cutting the distance the product has to travel, that would certainly help.
There are also things like local food market infrastructure. You used to have traditional farmers’ markets regularly within each market town. Now the infrastructure does not exist, but if spaces could be set up every Saturday for farmers to get out and market their wares to the local community, that would be a massive step in the right direction. So the infrastructure is quite important, but retail opportunities are also key for those farmers.
We also need to think about skills and training, because a lot of farmers—certainly my neighbours—traditionally do not think they are born marketers; they are happy to stick to the farming. However, they have got many skills, and increasingly consumers want to know the story of where their food comes from. Consumers increasingly want traceability and accountability in the food system. What we demonstrate through our system is that our consumers get to know us personally and support us for a whole season. By doing that, they invest in the farm and—not only that—they have a strong sense of accountability for where their food comes from. Moving forward, that provides a really robust business model.
Trudy Harrison
Q
Ed Hamer: Certainly. We have always said that what we propose is nothing new. It is not a step backwards but returning to the roots of agriculture, where most consumers used to know the farming community where their food came from. It is not a romantic notion. What we are selling is what consumers want: trust, accountability and traceability, and to know that they are supporting the local economy as well.
The Chair
Any further observations? In that case, thank you very much indeed, Ms Holland and Mr Hamer, for taking the trouble to come here. It was good to see you.
Examination of Witnesses
Jonnie Hall, Ivor Ferguson, Wesley Aston, George Burgess and Alan Clarke gave evidence.
The Chair
We are now joined by NFU Scotland, the Ulster Farmers Union, Quality Meat Scotland and the Scottish Government. We have until no later than 4.30 pm. Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. Would you identify yourselves for the sake of the record?
Jonnie Hall: My name is Jonnie Hall. I am director of policy with NFU Scotland.
Alan Clarke: My name is Alan Clarke. I am chief executive of Quality Meat Scotland.
George Burgess: I am George Burgess. I am the deputy director in the Scottish Government responsible for trade policy, food and drink.
Ivor Ferguson: I am Ivor Ferguson, president of the Ulster Farmers Union.
Wesley Aston: I am Wesley Aston, chief executive of the Ulster Farmers Union.
George Eustice
Q
George Burgess: Indeed. As I am sure the Minister is aware, the Scottish Government published earlier this year their proposals, “Stability and Simplicity”, for consultation. As the title suggests, those propose a period of stability and simplicity, with no significant changes in agricultural support for an initial period, followed by a period during which some relatively minor changes may be made. Those changes would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to deliberate on in due course.
George Eustice
Q
George Burgess: The choice between changing and retaining things through the Bill is perhaps not quite the right way to categorise it. Like DEFRA, we will use the withdrawal Act powers to repatriate into domestic law the existing European powers. As far as we are concerned, we have not identified anything in the agriculture space that needs anything beyond that in the initial phase to make existing schemes work. In due course, for the simplicity phase of our proposals, further powers would be required, but at this stage that is seen as a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Obviously, this is a devolved area. The whole thrust of devolution is that it will normally be for the Scottish Parliament to legislate in devolved areas.
The Chair
Does anybody else from Scotland wish to comment?
Jonnie Hall: We see an opportunity to have a schedule put in the Bill that covers the interests of Scotland in the longer term, beyond 2020. We see that as enabling Scottish Ministers, at some point in the future, to take clear decisions about how to develop and implement Scottish agricultural policy. Nevertheless, we also understand and appreciate some of the reservations the Scottish Government have about the process that that might lead us into.
From the Scottish farming perspective, the impasse between the Scottish Government and the UK Government over this is leading to a high degree of uncertainty and concern. At the moment, as Mr Burgess pointed out, the Scottish Government are very clear about what they want to do in the short term, but they have no clear plan or strategy for longer-term policy development. Although Wales, Northern Ireland and England have all set out their visions for the next five to seven years in that respect and consulted on those, that is lacking in the Scottish context at this moment in time.
George Eustice
Q
Jonnie Hall: When the Bill was first published back in September—we knew this was going to come anyway—we were concerned that it was an enabling piece of legislation that could be a vehicle to allow Scottish Ministers to develop, implement and deliver a devolved agriculture policy for Scotland, but that the Scottish Government had not taken that opportunity. We understand that that opportunity remains. The offer is still on the table, if you like, for the Scottish Government to utilise this legislation.
The alternative would be that a Bill would go through the Scottish Parliament—a Scottish agriculture Bill—but that is, again, another unknown. It is a ticking clock, because as we all know, legislation of any sort takes time to go through any parliamentary process. As things stand, we have a degree of certainty for 2019-20, but thereafter, into 2020-21, we have no absolute certainty. Farming is a game that relies on a degree of confidence and certainty.
George Eustice
Q
George Burgess: I go back to the answer that I gave earlier. I am not sure that I recognise Mr Hall’s characterisation of the ticking clock on this. Assuming that our work with DEFRA proceeds, the powers will pass to the Scottish Ministers to implement the existing package of support. There will be no issue of agricultural support not being able to be paid. I do not personally recognise the 2020-21 deadline that has been suggested.
That gives time for any necessary legislation to be developed and taken through the Scottish Parliament. As a devolved matter, we see it as principally for the Scottish Parliament to do that. I am sure that our Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues have very good reasons for taking up DEFRA’s offer of including schedules in the Bill, which necessarily largely bypasses the legislative processes in those countries.
Jonnie Hall: May I come back on that? The clear thing is that, in terms of continuity, the Scottish Government could continue to utilise the existing common agricultural policy mechanisms and all that goes with that, but the UK Government and the other devolved Administrations are setting out an opportunity to move away from the CAP and to put in place a new policy that is more befitting and more bespoke to the needs of British and Scottish agricultural interests, so we can move away from the blunt approach of area-based payments and move on to more focused, targeted payments that underpin productivity in the environment and so on. Our concern is that, yes, things would continue as they are today, but there would be no ability to move away from the CAP, and that is what we all look at as the opportunity here.
George Eustice
Q
Wesley Aston: May I pass that across to my president, Mr Ferguson?
Ivor Ferguson: Certainly, we are quite happy with the approach that DAERA has taken. Of course, as the Ulster Farmers Union, we had a fair opportunity to feed into the framework document that is out for consultation. The other reason why we welcome the Agriculture Bill is that it gives us the ability to regionalise what we are doing in Northern Ireland. Another important point is that it gives us the opportunity for civil servants to take decisions in the absence of an Assembly.
The Chair
Q
Ivor Ferguson: Okay. Apart from being happy with the framework document, which we have had an opportunity to feed in to as the Ulster Farmers Union with DAERA in Northern Ireland, we are quite happy that we have the ability to regionalise what we are doing in Northern Ireland. We are also happy that the civil servants will be able to make decisions in the absence of an Assembly. We are quite happy with all those things.
George Eustice
Q
Ivor Ferguson: The first thing I wanted to say is that we would not want to move away entirely from the current CAP scheme that we farm under. We would like the opportunity to have some area payments at a lower level. It would certainly take the volatility out of our farming system. Farming in Northern Ireland is somewhat different from farming on the mainland, because we have so many small family farms, and if we took the area payments away completely, that would have a devastating effect moving forward. We certainly have an opportunity to take some of the bureaucracy out of the scheme, and that is something that we would look forward to. That is what we have tried to address in this new framework document. We have just had this consultation period, and I think we have addressed that to a large extent.
The Chair
Q
Wesley Aston: As far as we are concerned, the key issue in relation to this specific question is the ability to take our own decisions at a local level, and given the absence of the Northern Ireland Executive at the present time, we felt it was important to include that legislative power within the Bill. Going forward, as our colleagues from NFU Scotland have already said, there has to be scope within an overarching UK framework for the regions to tailor, within limits, the support to their individual circumstances—as we do under the CAP at the minute. That is critical going forward, and it is an opportunity for us all to try to address the three broad pillars of where we see support being essential.
From our point of view, that means sustainability and competitiveness, and particularly the whole issue of resilience. That goes back to my president’s point about having some sort of area-type payment as a resilience measure, but equally, the issue of the environment and how we take that forward. The Bill gives us more scope to do that, and we welcome the opportunity that it provides.
Dr Drew
Q
Ivor Ferguson: It is essential that we have different structures and devolved powers to handle our different farming systems. You have to bear in mind that farming in Northern Ireland is so much different from farming in England. As I said, there are very small family farms that are very intensive, with large numbers of livestock. From that point of view, we would certainly need the opportunity to tailor a scheme to suit our Northern Ireland farmers.
Wesley Aston: If I can follow up on that, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs came out at the beginning of this week with a report into Brexit and agriculture in Northern Ireland, and specifically recognised the point that Northern Ireland agriculture had to be treated differently. The Committee came up with various ideas, and that report is a very good one. We largely concur with a lot of the recommendations and conclusions that emerged from it.
The Chair
Q
Alan Clarke: We are a non-departmental public body in Scotland, responsible for promoting and protecting the red meat industry, and a lot of our activities are to promote some of the best brands around the world, including Scotch beef PGI—protected geographical indication—and Scotch lamb PGI. That is a difficult one for us, because we work within the structure that we have. We are not a lobby organisation like the NFU and so on, and we work very closely with Government. Really, we want to see a clear framework that our levy payers can effectively work within.
Jonnie Hall: May I respond to the question? Today, there are four settlements of the CAP within the United Kingdom, and it is absolutely vital that that continues to be the case going forward. A one-size-fits-all approach across the United Kingdom would be seriously difficult to manage and implement, and it could be seriously damaging to certain areas, particularly in Scotland. Remember that Scotland is predominantly about livestock. Given the nature of our terrain, the agricultural profile of Scotland is very much in that “less-favoured areas” category. It has very extensive agricultural systems. Something that may look right in terms of delivering the right policy outcomes for Cambridgeshire would not look right in Argyll on the west coast of Scotland. We have very different farming structures and very different farming needs, so the support has to be tailored, as it is today, at the devolved level.
The question is really about what vehicle that should be delivered through. There was an earlier point about whether to deliver it as part of a UK Agriculture Bill and having a schedule in there for each of the devolved Administrations, or whether Scotland should do something separately, through the Scottish Parliament, and run its own Scottish agricultural policy. It is vital that Scotland has the latitude to implement the right measures, appropriate to its needs.
However, we also have to respect and protect the internal UK market, so that there is not a huge disparity in how farmers are supported, which could distort trade within the UK. We are not in that game. We recognise the importance of preserving the integrity of the UK internal market, which is vital. We currently operate under the CAP, but we have four different settlements for it. We are looking in the future to operate under commonly agreed regulatory frameworks, so that we all play by the same rules but are not necessarily on a level playing field in terms of how support is delivered. That is the case today.
The Chair
Dr Drew, I know you have to leave, but if you have any further questions, please ask them.
Dr Drew
Q
Ivor Ferguson: I think it can. We fully understand that south of the border they will retain the CAP area payment system. I have been saying that we should not necessarily go along with that. We think that, if the payment structure was of low-level payments on an area basis, it would give us the opportunity to ward farmers on to an activity—producing goods, whether beef, milk or whatever.
The most important thing is that farmers who are actively farming and doing a good job should perhaps receive greater payments, and also related to their productivity and their looking after the environment. At the end of a long day, so long as the system rewards farmers for doing a good job, it does not matter in what way it is developed, because at least the farmers would be rewarded in a similar way or with similar amounts of money. We do not have to deliver it in the same way, so long as we get to the same point in the end.
Wesley Aston: In terms of the importance of the Bill to Northern Ireland, we support the idea of being able to regionalise and have that flexibility going forward. One overarching principle, at a UK level, is budgetary cycles, which are UK-wide, and also things such as standards, which are UK-wide. Those are the areas in the Bill that are important to us. In terms of the support measures, if you like, the ability to regionalise is critical, but at the UK level we have to have certainty around those other issues for all parts of the UK.
Ivor Ferguson: I would like to add on standards that it is so important for us to maintain the standards and to make sure that no food of a lower standard is imported. In Northern Ireland we export at least 80% of our products into the mainland GB market, so any lowering of standards would have a devastating effect on Northern Ireland.
Colin Clark
Q
Jonnie Hall: No; if the schedule was written in the right way it would be about enabling and it would provide Scottish Ministers with the powers to develop, deliver and implement a Scottish agricultural policy, as is effectively the case under the CAP. That is essentially what we are looking for. It is a choice of which vehicle the Scottish Government choose to use and whether they want the vehicle that currently has its engine running and is sitting in this particular Westminster process, or something that might be brought forward through the Scottish Parliament.
Colin Clark
Q
George Burgess: That would, of course, depend on the terms of the schedule. I know that DEFRA has worked closely with Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues on the drafting of the schedules included there, so I am sure that if there were a Scottish schedule, it would not simply be handed down from DEFRA. Nevertheless, as I said earlier, with the greatest of respect to this Committee, the starting point for us is that the proper place for Scottish agriculture to be determined and debated and for legislation to be fixed is in the Scottish Parliament. There is no burning platform; there is no absolute requirement for a piece of legislation right now to deal with things immediately post-Brexit. Therefore our proposals, as set out in “Stability and Simplicity”, look in the longer term toward legislation that would start to bring in the simplicity and flexibility at that later point, and that should primarily be for the Scottish Parliament to determine.
Colin Clark
Q
George Burgess: I am not sure that the schedules give certainty about a future payment system. Most of the Bill and the schedules contain enabling powers rather than precise details of what the future support scheme would be. I am not sure that that contrast between certainty with something in the Bill and the uncertainty of what is happening in Scotland is quite right.
Colin Clark
Q
George Burgess: As I said earlier, that would entirely depend on the terms of that schedule. We could get into a theoretical argument about whether legislation created by this Parliament could then be amended or overturned by the Scottish Parliament, but I am not sure that is a particularly helpful way to go.
Colin Clark
Q
Alan Clarke: The meat levy has been a major issue not only in Scotland, but in Wales. For a number of years—probably from time immemorial—animals have always moved around the UK. Our figures identify that the leakage from Scotland of animals that are born and reared there but then processed in England means that about £2 million of levy money that should be Scottish is trapped in England. On average, 75% of that comes from producers and 25% from processors, so even if the producer levy could be repatriated to Scotland, it would still be a figure in the region of £1.5 million.
A lot of work has been done behind the scenes on this. The Scottish Government in particular have been leading on it and trying to put some of the processes and procedures in place that could help with it. We have an interim solution at the moment, which is called the ring-fenced fund. The ring-fenced fund is £2 million of levy collected in England by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. It has to be ring-fenced and used for the benefit of levy payers in England, Scotland and Wales. If we look just at having an equitable part of that £2 million, in theory £666,000 could be valued to Scotland, to Wales and to England respectively. In reality, the money does not change hands.
That is only part of the issue. We would very much welcome a long-term solution that had the opportunity to look at the size of the issue; as I say, Scotland on its own is a minimum of £1.5 million annually.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Q
Alan Clarke: I joined Quality Meat Scotland 16 months ago, so I came in during part of this. It has been an issue for many years. We have a real example of the three levy bodies—QMS, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, and Hybu Cig Cymru, or Meat Promotion Wales—working together really well, this year in particular. We are working on a range of projects. I have just come back from SIAL—Salon International de l’Alimentation, or Global Food Marketplace—in Paris, where we have been exhibiting together on joint stands. We are doing market access work. We have just signed off a £500,000 programme to promote the benefits of red meat in England, Scotland and Wales.
There is certainly evidence that we can work together, but it is not the long-term solution that we need. I am comfortable saying that in the long term the three levy bodies will continue to work on pre-competitive issues, but at the moment we do not have full control over all that money. Approximately 34% of the money is coming back to Scotland at the moment. There is now a real opportunity. The Bill is here, and the engine is running, to quote Jonnie, so let us get on with it.
Martin Whitfield
Q
Jonnie Hall: Certainly from NFU Scotland’s point of view, we would echo the views that you probably heard from the National Farmers Union of England and Wales, on Tuesday of this week and in other submissions: that the Bill does not really spell out the need for an agricultural policy that underpins food production of the highest standards—animal welfare and health, as well as environmental—and how we bring those things together. Food production and the environment do go hand in hand, and our thinking about post-CAP agricultural policy is about how we drive productivity improvements. At the same time, such improvements contribute to environmental challenges around such things as climate change, water quality, biodiversity, habitats and so on.
Clearly, as I am sure Mr Eustice would say, an awful lot of the Bill is about delivering a new agricultural policy for England that has a significant focus on environmental delivery, public goods and so on. We buy into that philosophy as well, but we would probably want to do it under our own steam and at our own pace using different measures and approaches, because that is the nature of Scottish agriculture.
Such things as grazing livestock in the uplands of Scotland add huge value in terms of their environmental contribution, but they also underpin many rural communities and the local economy. It is about ensuring the continuity, as much as anything else, of such activities, and how we manage ourselves regarding the continuation of that ongoing land management, respecting the fact that people are producing food and managing the land at the same time. That is where we need to be.
We would argue strongly, as we have done, that it has to be a devolved delivery, but the principles around productivity and environmental delivery, which are not mutually exclusive, have to be adhered to as well.
Chris Davies
Q
Jonnie Hall: As I said in response to Mr Whitfield’s question, I agree that on the face of it there is not a direct and clear reference to driving agricultural production of the highest standards that delivers both on animal health and welfare and the environment simultaneously. That is important; it is the Agriculture Bill.
Food and drink as a sector in Scotland is hugely important to the economy—it is the largest manufacturing sector in the Scottish economy—but it will not go anywhere without the primary producer. If we end up in a situation across the United Kingdom where the primary producer is steered more and more to the delivery of purely public goods and not market goods, in terms of food production, then you could see significant implications for food security and our ability to generate exports of high-quality product.
Ivor Ferguson: The document that we have out for consultation at the moment in Northern Ireland certainly recognises the need to produce food. Northern Ireland farmers are very passionate about producing food, but they are also very passionate about the environment. Not only do we need the ability to produce food to the high standards that we do, but we would like the ability to expand our business. We see the mainland GB market as a very big market for us and, as I said, we export 80% of our food, so there are opportunities there for us. We would certainly like the ability to be allowed to expand our food business. From that point of view, we are happy that that is already in our Northern Ireland document.
Deidre Brock
Q
George Burgess: Yes.
Deidre Brock
Q
Jonnie Hall: You are making two points. First, there is no doubt that the Scottish Government will be able to continue making payments, but they would be governed by the existing rules of the CAP. We want to get to a point beyond the implementation phase—December 2020, if that is what it is—whereby Scotland is ready and able to move to a Scottish agricultural policy beyond the CAP, to deliver support in a way that is more befitting and a more efficient use of taxpayer funding, and a better outcome in terms of supporting not only Scottish farmers but everything that Scottish farming then delivers for society as a whole. That is our concern there. Yes, continuation of payments, but we need to move away from, or out of the shadow of, the CAP at some point.
On the second point you made, I think we share those fundamental concerns about some of the schedules in the Bill—in particular part 7 and the World Trade Organisation reporting requirements. As the UK is the signatory to the WTO, the powers would rest with the Secretary of State. We have been quite clear that the Secretary of State would have, essentially, in theory, unilateral power to determine the funding allocation to different types of support measure, in order to be compliant with WTO requirements. That, in theory, could then impinge on policy decisions at a devolved level, a Scottish level. That is our concern, but if such concerns can be fundamentally addressed and resolved in practice, I think we would be in a different place.
As things stand with how the Bill is written—our legal and academic advice has backed us on this—the Secretary of State has unilateral power. Where we would like to get to is a situation in which there is much more involvement by the devolved Administrations, and in which the devolved Administrations have a role in agreeing those spending limitations. The same applies to the producer organisation element and to the fairness in the supply chain element.
However, there will always be an issue around how that should work because on the one hand the Secretary of State could have unilateral power, but on the other we certainly do not want Scotland or any other devolved Administration to have a veto over the rest of the United Kingdom either. We need to meet somewhere in the middle where some sort of consensus is established and agreed, and then we can move forward.
Deidre Brock
Q
Jonnie Hall: We have always argued that there is a need for common frameworks, particularly on regulation, across the UK, but they have to be commonly agreed frameworks. It is as much about the process of getting to the framework conclusions as it is about the conclusions themselves. And this is the same.
Deidre Brock
Q
George Burgess: As I think I commented earlier, there is no question but that the ability to fund agricultural support will continue, for day one and beyond, and I think Mr Hall has already agreed with that.
I actually agree with quite a lot of what Mr Hall has said. For the benefit of the Committee, our Cabinet Secretary has written to the Secretary of State with a number of proposed amendments to the Bill that the Scottish Government would like to see being made. I will ensure that a copy of that letter, and of the amendments, will be made available to the Clerk, to be shared with Members.
On the WTO clause that Mr Hall mentioned in particular, yes, we have a constitutional concern there that it relates to the observation and implementation of an international obligation. While international relations per se is a reserved matter, observation and implementation of such obligations in relation to devolved matters, such as agriculture, is itself a devolved matter. Therefore we see it as being entirely right and proper that Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland Ministers have a direct input into setting the limits within the WTO provisions and indeed into the mechanism for ensuring that the UK as a whole complies with our requirements.
Deidre Brock
Q
I wanted to ask you about protected geographical indications, or PGIs, and how damaging they could be, particularly to the meat sector, and to what extent. I wonder whether you could give us some information on that.
Alan Clarke: First of all, PGI is very important to Quality Meat Scotland. I mentioned earlier that we have Scotch lamb PGI and Scotch beef PGI, and we are able to promote those world-class brands—both of them—in Scotland, in the UK and worldwide.
We have been doing a lot of work with other partners, including Scotch whisky, Scotch salmon and so on, and they care about what the implications of this are. We really hope that there is a seamless transition for PGIs going forward; we would be very, very concerned if there was not, particularly if we ever had to reapply for a PGI. That would be a major concern to us.
We also know that the current consultation has identified that there would be a need for a new logo, for example. Our concern would be the packaging costs for the processing sector to do something like that. More importantly, would we confuse consumers? They have trusted this logo and it is something that they have recognised. Over the years, we have invested millions to try to establish that logo in the minds of customers, and we have a real concern that all that really good work could be lost. That is one area within the red meat industry in Scotland, but we really are part of the much wider food and drink sector, and that synergy has really benefited us as well.
Chris Davies
Q
Jonnie Hall: We do have members who farm in different parts of the United Kingdom under the same business and it has always been something of a challenge in terms of which Administration deals with which component—whether it is land inspections, the payment claims and so on. I suspect that the lack of a publicly clear strategy from the Scottish Government poses some doubt and questions in the minds of those farmers who straddle borders, but equally it probably poses a lot of uncertainty for any farmer in Scotland, not just those who straddle the border.
One thing that will be vital—it goes back to common regulation—is that when you have cross-border farmers, you have to apply the same regulatory approach in terms of pesticide use, animal traceability issues, food hygiene, feed rules and all the rest of it across the United Kingdom in a uniform fashion. That goes back to the statement that all farming unions have always agreed: we need a commonly agreed regulatory framework. We are playing to the same rulebook, but we are not necessarily supporting farmers in the same way; the support requirements for a hill farmer in Argyll are different from those of someone growing fruit and veg in Lincolnshire.
George Eustice
Q
George Burgess: In terms of observing and implementing those regulations, it is all of the Administrations within the United Kingdom. That is a well-established legal fact. The Scottish Government understand that, within their areas of responsibility, they must ensure that their actions are compliant. In terms of reporting into the international field, there are mechanisms through the European Union and the Commission. Such obligations are common in many international mechanisms, some of which the United Kingdom is a signatory to, and it is well established that, where necessary, the devolved Administrations provide information, often through a central contact point within the United Kingdom Government, as part of our international obligations.
George Eustice
Q
George Burgess: I think that is quite a narrow reading of clause 26, because only one of the subsections deals with that information provision and reporting. As has been already noted, we have considerable concerns about the other provisions in the clause. As I have said, we have nearly 20 years of experience of the devolved Administrations providing the necessary information to the United Kingdom Government for onward routing—whether through the European Commission or direct to the necessary international body—across a range of international obligations. There is absolutely no reason why we would stop providing that information now.
George Eustice
Q
George Burgess: My understanding is that it is the UK schedule, not the UK Government schedule. That there need to be mechanisms in the United Kingdom for co-operative working on this, to ensure that we meet our international obligations, is not at all in question. We have been working with DEFRA since the turn of the year on what a framework in this area should look like. It was therefore a bit of a surprise to us to be presented with a clause that puts all the power into the hands of the Secretary of State, acting alone.
We are looking for greater involvement for all the devolved Administrations in the setting of the limits, so that we can ensure and demonstrate to all parts of the United Kingdom that there is fairness all round in the way the international limit is being allocated.
George Eustice
Q
“a process for the resolution of disputes between the appropriate authorities”.
There is a dispute resolution process in an instance where Scotland might say, “We want to spend even more on market-distorting support and we think it is unfair that you have constrained us from doing that.” There is a dispute resolution process.
George Burgess: That there should be a dispute resolution process we have no difficulty with. If we read further in that provision we will see that it says that the dispute resolution process
“may include provision making the Secretary of State the final arbiter on any decision on classification.”
That particular provision, which sounds a little “judge and jury” to us, does not feel like the best way forward.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Q
George Burgess: Essentially, the Scottish standards and arrangements are not changing here; it is the ones on the other side of the border that will change. Under the powers in the Bill, as yet we do not know quite what they will change to. We know what the Scottish standards are, but we do not know quite what the English standards will look like. Any disparity would arise in that situation as a result of a change in England rather than a change in Scotland.
Colin Clark
Q
George Burgess: It is important to understand the way the producer organisation recognition system operates at the moment. This is a devolved area, but one in which all the Administrations, in our case through agency agreements, have chosen to delegate the function to the Rural Payments Agency. There is one body that does the work on behalf of all the Administrations. That system works well in a number of other areas that I am aware of. We are certainly not proposing that that should change. That it is devolved has been well recognised. There was a court case in recent years—a challenge to a Scottish-based producer organisation. Although the work was done by the RPA, the Scottish Ministers were ultimately in the frame.
We have absolutely no difficulty with a system of producer organisations. We do not quite see the need to have the provisions in the Bill, given the existing European provisions on producer organisations. All that we are suggesting through our amendments is that, in relation to Scotland, to mirror the existing position—nothing new—the powers should be with the Scottish Ministers. I would fully expect them to be delegated in turn to the Rural Payments Agency, as they are at present.
Colin Clark
Q
George Burgess: If we look at the producer organisation provisions that we have here, and at the amendments that we have proposed, none of them would create that risk any more than it exists at the moment.
Jonnie Hall: I agree with Mr Burgess.
George Eustice
Q
Alan Clarke: I made the point earlier, when I was asked whether there was a particular vehicle that could be used, that I thought the amendment was a really good vehicle, because it is timely and it is opportune. The reality is that we need a solution.
We have shown that the three organisations can work really well together, but we are not maximising our potential. If we can get the full £1.5 million back to Scotland, and the same value back to Wales, using a mechanism that the three organisations would agree, we will have a real opportunity. If that amendment were made to the Bill, and a process was put in place to make it happen, that could happen very quickly. That would be a real benefit, particularly to us in Scotland, and to Wales. We can show evidence of what we have done working together over the last 18 months, and, as I said earlier, we would continue to do that.
George Burgess: The Scottish Government have been seeking an amendment to deal with the red meat levy issue, as Mr Clarke said earlier, and have been asking for the Agriculture Bill to be used for that. I prepared a detailed policy paper on the subject more than a year ago and I have been discussing it with DEFRA officials since.
We do not yet have a commitment from the United Kingdom Government to use the Bill as a vehicle to deal with the red meat levy, but we hope that that commitment will be forthcoming. I have heard that two amendments deal with the subject, and we will look at those with great interest. It is certainly something that the Scottish Government have been seeking.
Jonnie Hall: May I add the weight of NFU Scotland to that, to support the Scottish Government and Quality Meat Scotland? The Bill is a clear opportunity to resolve an issue that has been ongoing for several years. We have waited for the right legislative vehicle. This is a clear moment to get the right amendment in the Bill and make it happen.
Deidre Brock
Q
Ivor Ferguson: The level of support we need in Northern Ireland will largely depend on our trade deals. That will be a big deciding factor. If the trade deals are against us in some way, we will certainly need more support. A lot of the support will depend on that. The difference in livestock between north and south does not really come into it. In Northern Ireland, we produce under the Red Tractor quality assurance scheme. As I said, we supply more than 80% of our product to the UK mainland market. That is not complicated by southern Irish livestock, because the standard is not the same as in Northern Ireland. I am not saying the standard is any lower than ours, but the Bord Bia standard is completely different from Red Tractor assurance.
Deidre Brock
Q
Ivor Ferguson: We have £300 million of support in Northern Ireland. We certainly would like to continue to avail ourselves of that level of support. If the trade deal went against us, we would probably need more support than that. We are taking the opportunity with our new framework document to look at the system differently. We think we can develop a more efficient system than the CAP system in Northern Ireland. As I said, we would like to retain a small amount of area payments, but looking forward, we want to give opportunities to progressive farmers who are efficient and do a good job. That is one of the changes we would like to see. Of course, we would also like to increase our share of the UK mainland market. We see opportunities there for us as Northern Ireland farmers.
Wesley Aston: My president has outlined the key issue—we will not be sure what type or level of support we need until we see the outcome of a trade deal. However, in a scenario in which existing market access continues, we see scope to regionalise agricultural policy in Northern Ireland. As I mentioned, the schedule to the Bill that deals with Northern Ireland gives us scope to do that; there is sufficient scope in the Bill. We are keen to take forward measures that are best suited to the Northern Ireland circumstances. We are also keen to pilot ideas.
In broad terms, we are keen to look at two broad aspects. One is to encourage more young farmers into the industry. We see this as an ideal opportunity to do that. We also have a particular issue in Northern Ireland with land tenure and the ability to develop and improve land. We have an 11-month conacre system, which is a short-term let of land, and there is no certainty for either the landowner or the tenant that they will be dealing with the same person the following year. From that point of view, there is no investment in that land. About a third of all Northern Irish land is farmed on that basis. We see that as coming within the scope of developing our own agriculture policy. We would like to address those two broad areas fairly quickly.
We are keen to pilot ideas. Northern Ireland is a small region. We are flexible and we talk to one another. The document my president keeps referring to was drawn up in conjunction with our own Government and our industry, including environmental stakeholders, so it has high-level agreement. We are very keen to implement that. In fact, that is one of the recommendations in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report about Brexit that I mentioned. That Committee states that it is keen to support such measures and for Northern Ireland to pilot them.
There are some things we can do of our own accord within the scope of our abilities, but there are others—particularly fiscal measures—for which we do not have devolved powers. We are keen to look at whether we can do something in those areas through measures such as tax incentives for longer-term land tenure, which would not be direct support. That is a fundamental issue in the restructuring we need to become the changed industry we ultimately need to be.
The Chair
Thank you very much. Mr Hall, Mr Clarke, Mr Burgess, Mr Ferguson and Mr Aston, you have come a very long way for a relatively short time, but I hope you feel it has been time well spent. I am certain that it has been of value to the Committee. We are indebted to you. Thank you very much.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Iain Stewart.)
Westminster Hall
(5 years, 12 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
International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered international freedom of religion or belief day 2018.
It is a pleasure to introduce this debate. Thank you, Mr Walker, for chairing it—it is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship. International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day will take place on Saturday 27 October. I thank right hon. and hon. Members—particularly those who will make contributions—for coming along. The fact that we debate this issue annually does not take away from its importance. It is good to consider again where there are problems.
I thank the Minister and the Government for their actions to advance the right of freedom of religion or belief. The appointment of Lord Ahmad as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religious belief is very welcome. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has appointed more staff to its FORB team and, crucially, committed to developing a statistical database to track FORB violations around the world. Those are significant and commendable steps to advance FORB. I truly appreciate the efforts of the Government and in particular of the Minister, who I know will always speak out for those who have no voice. That is the reason we are here.
We are privileged to have Ministers who are so compassionate and committed to the cause of human rights. As I have said many times, I am thrilled that we have the right Ministers in the right place at the right time. I very much look forward to hearing the Government’s plans for commemorating International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day and for defending and promoting that vital human right.
Unfortunately, despite the amazing work that has been done, there is much still to do. FORB violations are rampant and truly global. Earlier today, at a panel on Afghanistan, I spoke about freedom of religious belief and how religious minorities of all kinds are persecuted in that country. Other Members will speak about Pakistan, which I recently visited with the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and Lord Alton. We had an opportunity to express concerns on behalf of religious minorities there, which we did with some fervour. I know she will speak about that.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Pakistan. Bangladesh was of course formerly East Pakistan. Is he aware of the abuses of freedom of belief—I imagine there are abuses of freedom of religion, too—that take place there? The photojournalist Shahidul Alam was imprisoned for taking pictures of student protests. I know the Minister is looking at that case, and I hope he can give us good news soon, but it is an affront to democracy. We cherish freedom of belief in this country, and such abuses should be cracked down on.
Jim Shannon
I absolutely agree. Wherever there are human rights abuses—abuses of journalists or whatever else—we should certainly speak out. I thank the hon. Lady for reminding us of that case.
Just today I tabled a question to the FCO asking whether it will make a public statement in support of a full, independent investigation into allegations of forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China. Others will speak about killings along religious lines in Nigeria.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from China, I am sure that, like many of us, he is alarmed by the recent BBC news reports that millions of Muslims in China are being interned, seemingly because of their faith and not much more. Although we rightly want to do lots of trade with China, does he agree that we should take that issue up at the highest levels with the Chinese Government?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of that case. He is absolutely right. The stories in the press in the past few days have been horrendous. We have seen the establishment of what cannot be called anything other than stalags—concentration camps—where people are subjected in every way, emotionally and physically, to efforts to change their views. Those Uyghur Muslims are among the people we speak up for today. I chair the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, which speaks out for people of Christian faith, of other faiths and of no faith. I also chair the APPG on Pakistani minorities. I am particularly interested in the issue the hon. Gentleman mentions, and I thank him for doing so.
Closer to home—we should not take away from what is happening here—there has been a 40% increase in hate crime on the basis of religious belief in England and Wales, and it is reported that churches in occupied territories in Ukraine have been denied registration and declared illegal. I am sure hon. Members will discuss those issues in much more detail—I intend to give just a general introduction—but I raise them to highlight the grave importance of International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day. Now more than ever, we must come together to stand up for those who suffer intolerance and persecution.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I fully agree with him about the importance of speaking out for people of all faiths, in all countries, who suffer persecution for their faith. Does he agree, though, that we should celebrate the strength of multi-faith communities that live together harmoniously and the contribution that different communities working collectively can make to improving all our lives?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is good to remind ourselves that, around the world, many groups of different faiths celebrate together. On our visit to Pakistan, to which the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston will refer, we had an opportunity to encourage faiths to come together. It is important that we recognise, as I am sure everyone who will contribute to the debate does, that there is a need to understand that although we may have different religious faiths, there is nothing wrong with us coming together and appreciating each other’s faiths, thereby strengthening each other. It is important to do that.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Is it not also worth the House noting with concern that attacks on freedom of religion and Christian minorities are often a sign of worse to come? Regimes that oppress freedom of religion are likely to violate other human rights.
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Lady for making that point. We highlighted the persecution of religious minorities when we visited Pakistan. To illustrate her point, 13,600 people have been abducted in Punjab province, and there have been 2,900 rapes and 190 gang rapes of women. The level of sexual violence against women is despicable and bothers me greatly, as I am sure it bothers everyone else in the House. That is an indication—it starts with that and then goes on to everything else. The right hon. Lady is absolutely right, and the horrendous statistics back up her point.
Of course, protecting FORB not only is vital for individual welfare but plays a key role in preventing social instability. Although stability is a complex phenomenon, the case of Myanmar shows how unaddressed Government and social persecution of religious groups can explode into violence, undermining stability and creating humanitarian crises. Indeed, the UN specifies that discriminatory practices, or targeting communities based on their identity, is a key risk factor for atrocity crimes.
In September, the House of Lords International Relations Committee published evidence from the UN and the World Bank highlighting that
“the tipping point for joining a violent”
terrorist
“group was usually some sort of violation of law, or a sense of violation of law”.
That goes back to what the right hon. Lady said. That shows that making sure that human rights are protected can play an important role in ensuring stability and preventing violent conflict, which in turn is vital to long-term economic development.
The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs recently stated:
“Promoting the rule of law and democracy globally is key to developing the UK’s prosperity.”
In the short term, the Committee stated, the Government
“will face conflicting priorities between human rights and other Government policies, especially trade deals.”
We need to be careful about those. The Committee continued:
“This may create short term conflicts, but the prioritisation of human rights is in the UK’s long-term commercial, as well as moral, interest.”
I hope the Minister can tell us something positive about that in his response.
Given the importance of protecting FORB and marking International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day, I want to make five recommendations that might help in the significant efforts being made to advance FORB. I will then briefly discuss FORB issues in several countries in south Asia and the middle east, namely Pakistan, India, Nepal, Turkey, Egypt and Iran.
My first recommendation is for Departments that are significantly affected by FORB issues, such as the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, to produce strategic plans for how they can advance this fundamental right and for them to work regularly with Lord Ahmad to co-ordinate their work. That is important. Would the Minister be willing to encourage those Departments to develop such plans? Will he also push for FORB literacy training for staff, so that they can understand the religious dynamics and tensions that clearly exist in the countries in which they work?
Secondly, DFID operates in many countries that have severe levels of discrimination and violence towards certain religious or belief groups. In these countries, DFID could encourage more non-governmental organisations to develop programmes that promote the welfare of marginalised communities and help to reduce tensions between religious or belief groups in conflict. Would the Minister be willing to encourage and support DFID to take such action? I know he would—I know I am pushing at an open door, to be honest—but I want to put the point on record. Will he ensure within DFID that modules that teach respect for people of all faiths and none are included in more education programmes, as well as capacity building programmes for police, civil servants, NGOs and other groups? I will not steal anyone else’s thunder, but it was important to see the police and other departments in Pakistan working to ensure that these things happen as well.
Finally in this section, I commend the Minister for the Government’s role in developing country-specific strategies for advancing FORB. Will he continue to work with FCO heads of mission and DFID country heads to produce more of these plans for promoting FORB?
The hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston, the noble Lord Alton of Liverpool and I made a trip to Pakistan; the hon. Lady will speak about that and I will let her refer to it, because it is important to do so. Religious minorities including Christians, Hindus, Ahmadis and other groups face very significant persecution in Pakistan and are severely marginalised.
When we were there, we visited some of the slums where the Christians, for example, were living. It is very hard, and none of us was not touched by what we saw. Any slum where any group lives is horrific, but we went to the Christian slum in particular, where there were 48,000 people living in 8,000 houses. It was quite unbelievable. I call them houses, but they were rudimentary. They were never more than a single block or a wooden frame with a carpet thrown over it. There was a single hose that ran through the slum, and open sewers. One thing about it, which the hon. Lady will speak about, is that the children were happy, smiling and clean. There was certainly a willingness to try to do something.
I do not do the pools, but if I did, or if I won the lottery, I would certainly give whatever money I won to do a project there. I have spoken to the Minister of State, Department for International Development, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and I intend to put forward some programmes that he might be sympathetic to assisting out there for all those who live in slums—all those minority groups, whatever they may be. It is important to do that.
I want to comment quickly on the 5% employment quota for non-Muslim Pakistanis. It is all very well for the Government to set a 5% quota for religious minorities to achieve jobs, but if people do not have the education to get those jobs and achieve the goal, it does not matter very much. The Minister has kindly said that he will look at that as well.
I also want to speak about possible reforms to the criminal law to prevent the persecution of religious or belief minorities in Pakistan. I will not go into too much detail, because some of it has been highly confidential, as the Minister knows, but I will say that we had the opportunity to meet two of the three judges who will decide the fate of Asia Bibi, who has been in prison under a death sentence for eight years, separated from her husband and family. We need a law that does not penalise people or treat them adversely, because someone with malicious intent can make an allegation, which is clearly what we have seen in this case. We made those comments clear, although I will say no more about that, other than to say that the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston will comment on it.
Next, I will speak about the FORB situation in India. Despite Prime Minister Modi’s pledged commitment to “complete freedom of faith”, since his election in 2014 there has been a significant increase in anti-minority rhetoric and mob violence against Muslims and other minorities. Let us be quite clear: I am here to speak for every religious minority, as the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who intervened earlier, knows. I am here to speak for all religious minorities, wherever they may be. We have spoken about the Uighur Muslims in China; we will speak about the clear persecution of Muslims in India. I want to speak up for those people as well and ensure that the Indian Government are aware of their commitment to international religious freedom through the UN. There have also been hundreds of attacks on Christians.
Worryingly, at the end of July 2018, in Assam State, the Indian Government effectively stripped 4 million people, mostly Muslims, of their citizenship, branding them illegal immigrants from neighbouring Bangladesh. How annoying and frustrating is it to watch a democratic country specifically targeting those of other religious beliefs? The situation bears worrying similarities to the plight of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, who in 1982 also had their citizenship removed and were labelled Bangladeshi before being attacked by the Burmese military.
It is hard not to get emotional, strongly agitated and full of angst about what is taking place across the world, because there is so much happening. This debate is a chance to reiterate those points, and others will do so. All this is very concerning, not only for obvious reasons, but because violence and discrimination could cause significant grievance among the 250 million-strong non-Hindu population of India, leading to instability. Mob violence has already increased significantly across India, and in the past few months both ISIS and al-Qaeda have called on India’s Muslim population—predicted to be the second largest, if not the largest, in the world—to “take revenge”. We have a difficult situation developing in that country, and if the Indian Government do not start to do something about it, we are in great trouble.
Andrew Selous
The hon. Gentleman used the phrase “across the world”. While there are excellent organisations such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide that operate in this space, I have always been particularly struck by Open Doors’ “World Watch List 2018”. Going back to that phrase “across the world”, is it not shocking that we can draw a line from the west coast of Africa all the way through the middle east to the Pacific ocean and in every single country along that route there is persecution of Christians? Does he think it might be a good idea if every Christian place of worship in this country had the Open Doors “World Watch List 2018” up in its hall or reception as a visual reminder of what some of our brothers and sisters in the faith have to put up with?
Jim Shannon
That is a salient reminder for us all. We have one in the Freedom of Religious Belief office here. I am regularly in contact with Open Doors and many of the other organisations—Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Release International and the Barnabas Fund—and our churches all have them as well. The hon. Gentleman will know this, but every morning in my and other people’s prayer times, when we go around the countries of the world, there are 50 or 60 countries where persecution is rife. That is always a reminder to me at the beginning of the day of the freedom that we have here, and that others do not. He is right and I thank him for his intervention.
We had the ISIS-inspired attack in Madhya Pradesh in India, in which 10 people were killed. For the benefit of both India and its potential for a stable long-term relationship with the UK, we must take a stand against growing human rights violations there. I hope that the Minister can work with the Indian Government at least to make them aware that we are concerned.
I will speak quickly about Nepal. As the Minister knows, the Nepalese penal code 2017 contains problematic provisions that criminalise religious conversion and “hurting religious sentiment”. Those words give the Government power to do a lot of things to persecute religious minorities. We have had reports of 20 Christians being arrested and four churches being burnt down. Where does this stop? The Nepalese Government receives some DFID funding and gets support from our Government. The laws are insensitive to the feelings of religious minorities and their positions, and we believe that the legislation relating to criminal liability for doctors, and the issue of arrest warrants, is completely irrational and illegal. There is an excellent opportunity for the UK to suggest that Nepal reconsiders its problematic provisions in order to stay in line with its obligations as a member of the UN Human Rights Council. Members of the Human Rights Council must adhere to its principles.
Turkey has become a difficult country. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton referred to journalists, and Turkey’s clampdown on journalists and the media has been atrocious. Pakistan has been asked to send 230 Turkish teachers back to Turkey to make them accountable and to have their rights taken away. I have written to the Minister suggesting that we do all we can to ensure that the Turkish Government cannot do that. An early-day motion in the House this week also refers to that.
Dr Huq
The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. Is he aware of another example of Christian persecution in the middle east: that of the American Quakers? Although they have an illustrious history of helping refugees of all faiths in the second world war and of hiding Jewish children, they are now on a banned list for travel to Israel. Does that not seem baffling?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing that up. I was not aware of that one, but we will certainly pursue it through the APPG.
There has been a surge in ultra-nationalist rhetoric across Turkey, alongside hate speech and incitement to violence against non-Sunni Muslims. Religious minority groups face growing harassment, and foreign missionaries have been arrested and deported. Most notably, in 2016 the American pastor Andrew Brunson was arrested, along with his wife, and accused of being a threat to national security—the threat being that he was a Christian in Turkey, preaching the gospel to people who wanted to hear it. Where is the threat in that? The European Court of Human Rights has made many judgments on those and other long-standing issues, such as the right to raise one’s children in line with one’s religious or philosophical views, the right to establish places of worship and the right not to disclose one’s religious beliefs, but they have not been addressed by the Turkish Government.
Egypt may have fallen off the map a wee bit, but I could not be here without mentioning it. Egypt has many serious human rights issues, including restrictions on freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief. In recent years, Egyptian authorities have used torture and enforced disappearance against hundreds of people, and dozens have been extra-judicially executed. In addition, last year more than 100 Christians were killed in terror attacks amid an atmosphere of continued impunity for sectarian violence. In November 2017 gunmen attacked a mosque in North Sinai, killing over 300 people—the deadliest attack seen in Egypt for many years.
In December 2017 the head of the Egyptian Parliament’s committee on religion said that a new law was being drawn up to criminalise atheism. Well, the APPG that I have the privilege of chairing speaks up for those of Christian faith, of other faiths and of no faith, and that is contrary to what we believe in. The freedom to have one’s own thoughts is very much part of a democratic society. That law seems not to have had much support, although that is probably because the Egyptian criminal code already has severe provisions that can be used to target both atheists and “apostates”, to use their language.
It is important to highlight the plight of the Baha’is in Iran, as we often do in this House. While many religious and belief groups are persecuted by the Iranian regime, Baha’is are a particular target for official persecution. Since 1979, Iranian authorities have killed or executed more than 200 leaders of the Baha’i faith and nearly 1,000 Baha’is have been arbitrarily arrested in the last decade. Baha’is have been murdered simply for their faith.
I have a small but vibrant and particularly vocal Baha’i group in my constituency. I have attended their events, and I know they will be encouraged that the plight of Baha’is being mentioned in this House. They are often denied the right to higher education or prevented from working, and often their lands or businesses are taken away from them. Despite the presidency of the supposedly centrist Rouhani, oppression of the Baha’is in Iran is getting worse.
Hon. Members will know how important FORB is to me, as it is to them. I was going to say that I should stop speaking so that others have something to talk about but, tragically, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, there is no shortage of topics to cover when we look at what is happening across the world.
FORB is a fundamental human right not only because of its importance to human dignity and flourishing, but because of the role it plays in preventing conflict and maintaining stability. I thank the Government for their commitment to this right and humbly suggest that, to advance FORB even further, the Minister should consider: producing plans to provide DFID and Ministry of Defence staff with FORB literacy training; encouraging the development of Government and civil society programmes that promote FORB; and working with FCO and DFID country heads to develop country-specific FORB strategies.
I am sure that those from Christian Solidarity Worldwide will not mind me saying that just this week an event took place in the House—many Members present attended it—on its toolkit for standing up for freedom of religion or belief. It has produced a really good publication—if the Minister did not get a copy, I will make sure that he does—which is a toolkit for all of us individually but also for civil servants and those in departments across the world.
Hopefully these recommendations can help make a difference for religious or minority groups in countries such as Pakistan, India, Nepal, Turkey, Egypt and Iran who are being denied their right to FORB. The sheer volume of FORB violations in those countries—and elsewhere, including the UK—points us to the importance of International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day, which necessarily gives us the opportunity to come together and stand up for all those who are suffering, all those who are attacked, and all those who have to struggle and fight for something we take for granted. I come back to Pakistan where, as the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston knows, we went to church under police protection. By comparison, here in the United Kingdom we at least have the freedom to go to church and worship our God.
As parliamentarians, it is our duty to stand up for people, wherever they may be. To help with that, I direct hon. Members to the toolkit produced by Christian Solidarity Worldwide. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for coming to the debate. We may never meet some of the people across the world on whose behalf we are speaking, but today we have the opportunity to speak on their behalf.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on a wide-ranging speech that covered many areas. I know colleagues will mention many countries of concern across the world; I will focus on what we can do here. Today, we are standing up in Parliament to say how important freedom of religious faith and belief is to all of us, as it is to many colleagues who are not here. It is the responsibility of this country, faith leaders and indeed individual worshippers and people of no faith to stand up, regardless of their faith, for all those around the world who are being persecuted.
I was born an Anglican and worship in a Baptist church, so I call on the leaders of those Churches and of all faith groups in this country to get up every time there is a problem with persecution—there are such problems most of the time—and say, “As a Christian, I abhor the persecution by Christians of a minority,” or, “As a Muslim, I abhor the persecution of members of other faiths—Christians, Hindus or Buddhists—by a Muslim majority country.” I would like to see that, because sometimes, I fear, we are hot on looking at the persecution of people who share our faith—it is right and important that we are—but a little less vocal when it comes to the persecution of others. The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned the case in China that has been highlighted by the BBC. It is vital that, as Christians, we stand up for Muslims who, reports suggest, are being targeted there.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Does he share my enthusiasm for the European Court of Human Rights? Many cases have been brought to it by many different faith groups, and it has stoutly defended their rights. After all, it was born out of the second world war, which had a significant religious element—or an anti-religious element in relation to the Jewish faith.
Jeremy Lefroy
My hon. Friend makes a vital point. We in this country have sometimes—especially at this time—been a bit confused about the difference between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, so let us make it quite clear. I and everybody in this room, I am sure, would never want the United Kingdom to pull out of the ECHR or to resile from our signature to the European convention on human rights.
John Howell
That is a very good point. Another is that, as a member of the Council of Europe, I help to elect the judges to the ECHR, which gives that court a democratic legitimacy that no other has.
Jeremy Lefroy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should make the point that the United Kingdom’s participation in the ECHR right from the beginning—we signed the convention after the second world war—is absolutely fundamental to who we are as a country. We need to maintain that and to not mix it up with other discussions about Europe, as I fear has happened even in my own party in the past, although not in the future, I hope.
It is important that all faith groups stand up for one another. I want Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs and atheists to stand together and fight for the rights of persecuted minorities, rather than raising concerns only if, for example, they are Muslims and Muslims are being persecuted, Christians when it happens to Christians, or Hindus when it happens to Hindus. It is vital that we all hang together in this, or, as somebody else said, we will surely hang separately.
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
It is important that our debate is framed by that view, so am grateful for my hon. Friend’s wise words. Many people who engage themselves in this issue, but by no means all, come at it from a strongly religious—strongly Christian, in this country—standpoint. It makes life a lot easier for all of us, especially in the areas I cover as a Minister—Asia and the Pacific—when our high commissions and embassies are able to make the case that we are not specially pleading for one particular or predominant religion, but raising a general, human rights-related issue. It is important that we able to do that. That was perhaps not quite the case in the past. I understand the strength of feeling, particularly in Christian communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) rightly pointed out, but this is a human rights issue that applies to all people of all religions and none, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford also rightly points out.
Jeremy Lefroy
I am most grateful to the Minister, who takes his role incredibly seriously. We are proud to have him in that position.
As Members of Parliament, we are honoured to be able to travel quite a lot. I encourage all Members, when traveling to another country—even if it is not part of their role, or they may be on a Committee visit—to meet people of faith or no faith who are being persecuted, or who are experiencing that sort of problem. I have done that on some occasions. I have also met people of minority faiths who are supported and do not have a problem. On a recent visit to Kosovo—a predominantly Muslim country, but one that has freedom of religion enshrined in its constitution—I was honoured to meet a Christian pastor to talk about that country’s serious problem with youth unemployment, which is running at 60%. He was very open about the way in which he was able to establish churches in that country and about the freedom of religion there. That gave me great comfort, but I have been in other countries where I have received less comfort from the reports of the minority groups that I met. Parliamentarians often have privileged access, and it is important that we use it to encourage those who are being persecuted or are under pressure, and to say, “We have not forgotten you. You are remembered in the United Kingdom and its Parliament.”
Some Governments that profess to offer freedom of religion and belief actually undermine it. The Foreign Office and the Department for International Development can advocate on behalf of minorities in relation to the methods used, which are often fairly technical. They include the development of the constitution and how it deals with what is often known as proselytising, or seeks to restrict the right to freedom of speech, which appears to be there but is actually not. Another such measure is refusal of planning permission for places of worship—it should be given, but reasons are found for it not to be, year after year. In the end, groups are forced to register to use temporary accommodation, or are not even able to meet together. Again, the Foreign Office, or DFID if it is working in the country, can say to Governments, “Hang on—you are not abiding by your own laws. You are discriminating against a group by not allowing them to establish a place of worship, even if it is permitted.”
Finally, although we know that Governments have little control over this, we need to look at the role of social media and how it enables the spread of fake news, such as the spreading of lies about people that results, in some countries, in their being lynched or murdered for something that they have not done. We should encourage Governments to take up those cases, to ensure that those who use social media for such terrible purposes are held to account judicially, and that the companies that enable those people are regulated in a way that we have begun to talk about here.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak, Mr Walker. I hope that this Freedom of Religious Belief Day will be the chance for people of all faiths—particularly their leaders—and no faith to stand up for all those who are persecuted across the world, and to not make exceptions for those with whom they do not share a faith.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), not only for his excellent speech but for the tireless commitment he has shown to raising this issue in Parliament over the years.
The hon. Gentleman’s knowledge and passion were extremely helpful during our recent trip to Pakistan, where we discussed many of the issues that will be raised by hon. Members today. I was very grateful to the Pakistani people for the warm welcome we were given and for the engagement and energy that we saw in every face in every meeting every day. They have hope and faith, and they are looking to us for help. We travelled from cities to slums, from the heart of the Supreme Court to the outskirts of Islamabad, and we consistently found people who recognised the significant scale of the problems faced and who are ready and willing to tackle these challenges.
Today, just two days before International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day, is the perfect time for me to discuss some of the challenges facing Pakistan and another important nation—China. I begin with something that the hon. Gentleman mentioned: the recent BBC investigation into China’s organ transplant industry. Last week, I attended a meeting about the persecution of a group I had never heard of before: Falun Gong practitioners. To say I was shocked and appalled by what I heard would be a significant understatement. Falun Gong is a spiritual practice that was outlawed by the Chinese Government in 1999. Since then, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom reports that Falun Gong practitioners have been arbitrarily detained in their thousands, being regularly confined in labour camps or disappearing altogether. As if that were not bad enough, there are widespread, consistent and credible reports that China is forcibly removing organs from those prisoners to supply the vast, expanding and lucrative organ transplant industry.
Organ harvesting. I think we all need to take a moment to let the idea of that sink in. It is 2018 and we are talking about human beings—men, women and children—being treated like cattle, killed on demand for the benefit of others, and all because they practise the wrong faith. The Chinese Government of course deny that that is happening. They acknowledge that it used to happen, but say that it has stopped. I know that all hon. Members would very much like to believe that that is true, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
I refer the Minister to the 2016 report compiled by former Canadian Cabinet Minister David Kilgour, working alongside prominent international human rights lawyer David Matas and Ethan Gutmann, an award-winning investigative journalist. Their report is a meticulous examination of the transplant programmes of hundreds of hospitals in China. It draws on media reports, official statements, medical journals and hospital websites, and analyses information such as hospital revenue, bed counts, bed utilisation rates, surgical personnel, training programmes, state funding and more. Their research indicates that the Chinese regime is performing between 60,000 and 100,000 organ transplants a year—a vast discrepancy with the official estimates of roughly 10,000 a year. Where are the organs coming from?
The alarming discrepancy with the official statistics is not the only evidence—indeed, it is just the tip of the iceberg. For example, since 2000, Chinese transplant hospitals have quoted waiting times of between days and weeks for an organ transplant—sometimes even hours. To give hon. Members some context, the average waiting time for a kidney transplant in the UK or US is two to three years, and these countries have much longer established traditions of voluntary organ donation.
That evidence, combined with testimony from Chinese medical professionals, has led to reports by major news outlets across the world, including the BBC, CNN and The New York Times. Indeed, the evidence is so persuasive that it has led numerous countries across the world to condemn the practice and to introduce legislation to prevent organ transplant tourism to China. For example, in 2016 the United States House of Representatives passed resolution 343 on forced organ harvesting in China. That resolution
“condemns the practice of state-sanctioned forced organ harvesting in the People’s Republic of China”
and
“demands an immediate end to the…persecution of the Falun Gong spiritual practice”.
Earlier this month, it was announced that a people’s independent tribunal on forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience would begin in London during December 2018. The tribunal will be chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice, who led the prosecution of Slobodan Milosevic, former President of Serbia, at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. I hope that hon. Members, including the Minister, will follow closely the work of the tribunal on forced organ harvesting.
The accusations are grave and difficult to believe, but does not their very gravity mean that we should do all we can to assess their validity? Should we not make absolutely sure that the claims are not true? Can we really say that we care about protecting freedom of religion or belief if we do not fully investigate such horrible reports? This Government have made very important strides against horrible practices such as modern-day slavery. Will the Minister agree to tackle this equally revolting practice? It is especially important now, as the Chinese Government seem to be expanding their persecution to Uighur Muslims. The UN has reported that 1 million Uighurs—innocent Chinese citizens; peaceful practitioners of Islam—have been detained in “re-education” camps in Xinjiang. Although I am a great believer in the importance of studying, I do not think that even I would want that kind of education. Also, The Guardian reports that millions of Uighur Muslims have been arbitrarily detained for unwanted blood, tissue and DNA tests. Why? What could possibly be the motive for that? Given the evidence mentioned earlier, one could be forgiven for concluding that it is preparatory work for including Uighurs in the forced organ transplant system. Can we really stand by and not look into this?
I shall finish my discussion of freedom of religion or belief in relation to China by quoting a passage from a report produced in 2016 by the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission:
“This is an issue that emerged in 2006 and was initially met with official scepticism. Yet…the evidence has continued to accumulate, and the issue shows no sign of fading away. The United Kingdom should address it head on. Working with others within the international community, Britain could help commission an independent investigation to examine the size of China’s organ transplant industry…the United Kingdom could enact legislation making it a criminal offence to travel to China for organs. The UK Government should raise detailed questions about organ transplant processes and facilities with the Chinese Government, specifically around how waiting times for compatible organs are so short and where organs are sourced from.”
I hope that the Minister will take those recommendations to heart.
On my recent trip to Pakistan, I was shocked to learn about the ongoing persecution of another group that I was unfamiliar with until recently—the Ahmadis. The Pakistani penal code, which the Member for Strangford mentioned, is used to prevent Ahmadi Muslims from identifying as Muslims or even using Islamic greetings, although they are Islamic people. Ahmadis are routinely arrested arbitrarily on false charges of blasphemy and have been subjected to vicious attacks in public, including acid being thrown at them. Hundreds of Ahmadis have been murdered on grounds of faith. Ahmadis are also technically prohibited from voting, because to vote they are required by the state to register as non-Muslim, which many refuse to do.
John Howell
I have a lot of association with the group of Muslims the hon. Lady talks about. They came to my constituency and asked whether they could hold a meeting showing that the Koran was a book of peace, rather than a book of war, because they have a great attraction to the legitimate government system within a country. It was a fantastic event. I hope that the hon. Lady will, with me, endorse their great feeling for the British system, which they showed at that meeting.
Ms Rimmer
I will; I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is good that the Ahmadis felt that they could come. When people who have come from a country where they were persecuted have the faith and strength to go to someone who is completely alien or slightly alien to their religion, it gives some confidence that they believe in us and this country.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
It is not only in Pakistan where intolerance is being displayed towards these people. In Glasgow in 2016, there was a case in which a man travelled a considerable distance—I cannot remember how far; he might have come from the north-east of England. [Interruption.] It may have been Birmingham. He came to confront a newsagent in his shop and kill him—stab him to death—simply on the basis of his religious conviction. That is something that has been visited upon our own shores.
Ms Rimmer
I hope that the Minister will discuss with his Pakistani counterparts what can be done to support this beleaguered population, especially given that the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religious belief, Lord Ahmad, is an Ahmadi himself. If we fail to stand up for the freedom of religious belief of Ahmadis in Pakistan, we place ourselves in the rather ridiculous position of failing to stand up for the freedom of religious belief of our own special envoy for freedom of religious belief! It is urgent that we deal with that.
One thing that could really help, and which I urge the Minister to push for, is the implementation of the 2014 Pakistan Supreme Court judgment, which ordered the Government to, among other things, establish a national council for minority rights. This body has yet to be established, but if it were set up and the judgment implemented fully, it could have a significant impact on the welfare of Pakistani religious or belief minorities.
The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned that religious minorities in Pakistan do not have sufficient skills to obtain more valuable employment. The chairman of the Public Service Commission in Pakistan suggested an interesting idea to our delegation to address that problem. He mentioned the possibility of gathering all those who had just fallen short of the qualifications needed for a particular job, and training them to get them to the required standard, so that they would be ready when the next job came around that is put aside for these people. He specifically mentioned nursing as an area where such a program could be especially effective, and that he would appreciate support from the UK. Similarly, the Punjabi Ministry for human rights specifically asked our delegation to suggest that the UK earmark aid funding to help religious minority groups to overcome the significant barriers they face in Pakistan, which, believe me, are quite shocking. Will the Minister consider those ideas?
Before I finish I want to talk about refugees from Myanmar. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recently declared that Chin State in Myanmar is stable and secure from a refugee perspective, and that it would begin to return Chin refugees from India and Malaysia. The Chin Human Rights Organisation has, however, produced a report detailing how systematic violations of freedom of religious belief, including killings, torture and other forms of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, are still prevalent. Is the Minister willing to ask the UNHCR to share the information on which it based the conclusion that Chin State is stable and secure?
I thank the Government for their work on freedom of religious belief and for graciously meeting and supporting our delegation in Pakistan. I hope the Minister will do all he can to investigate and evaluate claims of forced organ harvesting in China, including pushing for an independent international tribunal on the issue. I trust that he will also work with his Pakistani counterparts to push for implementation of the recommendations made by the hon. Member for Strangford, and to support religious minorities in Pakistan, such as the Ahmadis, by calling for the establishment of a national council for minority rights. Finally, I am sure that refugees from Chin State, Myanmar would be immensely grateful if the Minister asked the UNHCR for the evidence showing that the state is stable and secure.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer). I associate myself with her comments.
It is always a pleasure to speak in a debate secured by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a doughty champion of the rights of people to express their religious belief and to find and approach God in their own way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) noted, this debate is not about the freedom to express the belief that I share with someone, but the freedom to express the belief that one has. The hon. Member for Strangford always makes the point that it is also about the freedom to express the belief in no religious faith, to not believe in God, to be an atheist, and to not be compelled to believe in something. For me, that is the core of this debate.
I am pleased to say that my church is quite active in the work of Open Doors. We publish the world watch list there each year, which brings home to those coming through the doors of St Matthias in Torquay—a Victorian church that has stood for about 150 years—that there are still many countries around the world where a church cannot stand so openly and its worshippers cannot just walk in. For many people, that simple act of wanting to go to church on a Sunday and praise their Lord could lead to them being sacked from their job, imprisoned, persecuted and, in some cases, killed. The chance to reflect on that in this Chamber is always welcome.
It is appropriate for me to reflect on this issue, which was recently brought home to me when I met two missionaries in my constituency who work in a part of the world where there is significant state repression. I have been asked not to give any more details than that. They told me about their experience of working in those areas—taking the faith out in a place where the Government do not have a particular view about the Christian faith as such, but believe that one’s faith should be in the Government itself, and where they want to crack down on any sign that people have their own thought processes or think for themselves.
In all too many cases, cracking down on people’s freedom of religion goes hand in glove with cracking down on every other right that they have. The countries that are likely to abuse religious rights and freedom of belief are exactly the same countries that crack down on journalists who write unhelpful articles or people who just believe that they should have a different say—for example, by being able to vote freely.
Every year we reflect, sadly, on the fact that North Korea tops Open Doors’ world watch list for persecution of Christians—being candid, it would top the list for the persecution by the state of any religious faith, except that which says that the leader of that country is some sort of divine being. While the North Korean regime may wish to celebrate its 70th year, there is nothing for its people to celebrate about the existence of that state for the last 70 years. The country is clearly in a desperate state and many people are starving.
Even among all that, there are still an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 Christians in the country. Even with everything they see around them, they hold on to that shining faith, which many of us share. However, it is estimated that between 50,000 and 70,000 people—the margins have to be wide, because it is incredibly hard to get accurate statistics or conduct work to establish what is going on in that country—might be in labour camps, in appalling conditions reminiscent of many of the concentration camps we saw in Europe back in the 1940s, when another tyrannical regime sought to put itself in the place of God.
While that may sound depressing, it is also quite inspiring for Christians in the west when we hear the story, for example, on the Open Doors website of Hea Woo, who planted a church in a North Korean labour camp—literally planted a church there for fellow Christians to come together in the name of God. While they were meeting in a toilet in a North Korean labour camp, rather than one of the great abbeys, such as the one we have opposite this place, or the churches that many of us frequent at home, there is still a church, and God and the Holy Spirit would have been there with them when they came together in Christ’s name. It is an inspiring picture that shows how the power of faith breaks through. Even in the worst, most horrible and appalling conditions, people still see the Christian faith as their source of light and inspiration. The story talks about still thanking God for the grace that they receive. For me, that is what was so inspiring about what it means to those people.
When I have come to these debates in previous years, we have inevitably ended up looking towards the middle east and the appalling behaviour of Daesh, which saw Christian communities that had existed for thousands of years and are named in the Bible wiped out in a few weeks. Thankfully, that group is being pushed back and is in retreat, but that should not hide the fact that appalling repression continues. In some cases, the people who are seeking to liberate areas from Daesh still hold the view that only one faith can be tolerated in their communities.
The issues in Turkey have already been touched on. Many of us were hopeful when we started to see signs of a new regime in Saudi Arabia, which removed the ridiculous ban on women driving and started to make noises about letting them in cinemas. The last couple of weeks and what happened in that country’s Turkish consulate will perhaps have given people pause for thought, however, about where it is going. No matter what trade or other interests we have, we should not be afraid to challenge certain countries. All Christians want to do is to proclaim God and to proclaim their faith. They do not want to force someone else to share their faith; they just want to freely share theirs, as people can in this country.
We should look not just at the middle east, but at sub-Saharan Africa and at the situation in Nigeria in particular. Nigeria is a melting pot of many cultures and faiths. It has the opportunity and the resources to be a wonderful place that provides a high standard of living for its people, but all too often those resources are caught up in conflict or destroyed, particularly by Boko Haram’s actions in the north. That group has sought not only to suppress people’s religious freedoms, but to take away rights to education. It particularly does not want women and girls to be educated and it enforces those views and beliefs.
It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts, but the next place where we may need to think carefully about how we continue to promote peace, stability and security, and how we ensure that some of those basic rights are guaranteed, might be in areas where the problem is not the state, but corrupt local forces on the ground or a non-state actor looking to impose its own regime and beliefs. We will need to think about how we continue to respond to that growing threat, particularly in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, as the focus of certain extremist groups moves away from the middle east, from Syria and Iraq, to that troubled part of the world. We have seen the situation in Libya, where not only can faith not be freely practised, but where there has been a return of the type of scenes involving slavery that we hoped had disappeared in Wilberforce’s era, but which are sadly being revealed in our 21st-century world.
It is likely that we will be here again next year, and hopefully we will be able to reflect on some progress. It is easy to get quite depressed sometimes about where certain parts of the world are going, but it is worth remembering that religious repression was common 30 years ago across swathes of eastern Europe, including in parts of what is now the Federal Republic of Germany. Whole generations of people in Europe had to live under oppression.
I heard the points that my hon. Friends the Members for Henley (John Howell) and for Stafford made about the European convention on human rights, but there is a debate to be had about how it can become a more effective thing to be signed, because there can be very few people living in eastern Ukraine who feel that their rights are being well protected by having Russia as a signatory to that accord.
Mark Field
On one of my hon. Friend’s previous points, it is worth putting on the record that, although we would like to do more and achieve more, by raising the issue in this and other European Parliaments, we can shine a light on parts of the world where in the past that might not have happened. Although we can all become rather depressed about how much more work has to be done in this area, we can make a real impact through these sorts of debates, bringing parts of the world, and hence the rights of many millions that could otherwise be ignored, to the forefront of many people’s minds here and in other democracies. We should celebrate that, while recognising that there is much more to be done.
Kevin Foster
I thank the Minister for his intervention. He is absolutely right that such debates shine a light and give hope to people who may not be able to express their faith freely. They show that in parts of the world where people can do that, we care, we focus and we will speak up for their right to express their faith. As I said about the case in North Korea, some of the stories, and the fact that people do such things under those conditions, are an inspiration to any of who profess to have faith—in my case, the Christian faith.
It is welcome that we continue to stand up and speak and that we continue to comment and make noise about this issue. People can look at what we are saying and see our thoughts, our values and how we freely and happily associate as people with different religious beliefs. I bet that there are different views and different denominations among hon. Members in this Chamber, which makes us all stronger and more secure in our faith. It is not a threat to someone’s faith to be with someone of another faith. Those who are strongest in their faith have nothing to fear about anyone else’s belief. It is those who are weak in their faith who define themselves by what they are against, not what they are for.
Following the Minister’s welcome intervention, it would be interesting to hear more from him about what concrete steps the UK can take, diplomatically and economically, perhaps using our development budgets, to promote the freedom of religion or belief and to support countries that are moving away from oppressive regimes or where communities are trying to re-establish themselves, particularly those that may have been driven out by genocidal behaviour. Part of that process is about supporting them to go back to their areas.
What difference does the Minister think the UK will be able to make as a P5 nation in the next couple of years? As he mentioned previously in a statement in the House, it is likely that France, Britain and Germany will be on the Security Council, which are three countries that work closely together on many issues, including securing basic human freedoms.
It is welcome to have this debate again. It is always welcome to be able to stand up and shine a light, to proclaim our faith and to make it clear that we feel that it is important that we can approach God without feeling that that needs to take away anyone else’s right to have a faith or not. By standing up and having this debate again, we have given hope and inspiration. If it gives hope to one more person in a dark dank hole in a North Korean labour camp that one day things will change, because people are standing up and speaking about their condition, it is worth every minute we spend here.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this incredibly important debate and for his tireless campaign for all those around the world who are persecuted because of their faith.
As the proud chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, my contribution will focus largely on the persecution of the Ahmadis. One of the largest mosques in western Europe is on the border of my constituency. As several hon. Members have said, the community identifies as Muslim but does not believe that Mohammed was the final prophet sent to guide mankind. That belief has led to widespread persecution across the world, and, I am afraid to say, even in the UK, as has been mentioned. I will take hon. Members on a global tour, from Indonesia to Islamabad, Bangkok to Burundi, and describe the day-to-day reality faced by the community.
In Algeria, 280 Ahmadi Muslims have been arrested on the grounds of their faith in the last two years alone. In Burundi, 13 young Ahmadis were arrested earlier this year while attending a religious education class. In Egypt, the Interior Minister started the year by issuing arrest warrants for at least 25 Ahmadis, including the publications secretary for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. In Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, Ahmadis are the only international religious group denied the right to register as a religious community. In Indonesia, Ahmadiyya Muslim is not even an authorised religion.
In Pakistan, as we have heard, it is a criminal offence for Ahmadis to call themselves Muslim, name their place of worship a mosque or even say the Islamic greeting. Hundreds of Ahmadis have been murdered in Pakistan. There is a separate electoral register that effectively denies them the right to vote. Even the grave of a Nobel laureate, Professor Abdus Salam, has been desecrated, to remove the word “Muslim”.
Finally, I turn to Thailand, where this month the Government have arrested 113 Ahmadiyya Muslim refugees amid a new crackdown on immigration, putting them at risk of deportation back to Pakistan, despite the fact that those arrested included Ahmadis who have been granted resettlement in Thailand.
Will the Minister take away from today’s debate the urgent need to raise the case of those Ahmadiyya Muslims with the Thai Government, and can he establish precisely what measures are being taken to ensure that such global hatred is prevented from reoccurring? I ask that final question because although I have taken Members on a global tour, the persecution of the Ahmadiyya community has now spread to the UK.
It was referred to earlier, but I also give the example of the murder of an Ahmadiyya shopkeeper, Asad Shah, in Glasgow. I could also cite the case of the Waltham Forest communities forum, which actively stopped an Ahmadiyya Muslim from being re-elected, stating that he could not be a representative of Islam. There is an undercurrent of hostility, in the form of posters calling for a boycott of Ahmadiyya businesses. The former national president of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Students Association has even described Ahmadiyya posters being torn down on campuses right across the country.
Such a scourge of extremism is a stain on the freedom of religion that we rightly and proudly celebrate here in the UK. In recent months our all-party parliamentary group has held a five-part inquiry that has heard evidence from around the world and from across the UK. It is the first ever parliamentary inquiry of its kind. The testimonies given were harrowing, conveying the scale of the hatred faced by Ahmadis far more starkly than any facts or figures could indicate. The APPG is compiling the evidence into a report and I will take this opportunity to invite the Minister and all Members here today to its launch, which we expect to take place at the beginning of the new year.
We cannot let such widespread persecution go unchallenged. As an MP, I have a duty to stand up to it on behalf of my constituents; as a Chamber, we have a duty to eradicate it from our country; and as a country, the Government have a duty to challenge it globally, wherever and whenever it is allowed to flourish.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate to mark this year’s International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing it, for his work on this issue and for the tour de force that was his speech. I will also say how much I respect every speech that has been made in the Chamber today; I agree with everything that has been said.
Let me start with some positive news. Earlier this week, Members may have heard news of a 13-year-old boy in Pakistan called Sharjeel, who was the only Christian in his class, all the other pupils being Muslim. Last week he turned off a water tap at school, for which he was beaten and expelled, on the grounds that he had polluted the water supply. Colleagues may recall the case of Asia Bibi, the wife and mother who is still in detention, some nine years on, for drinking water from a communal tap, for which she was accused of polluting the water supply.
Sharjeel’s mother went to the school to object to his treatment. She was told that he was an infidel who was only fit for cleaning latrines. How, therefore, can I say that I have some positive news? Following the concerns raised in the past few days by religious freedom activists, in Pakistan and abroad, with the authorities in Pakistan, there has been a swift response, which is very different from what happened in Asia Bibi’s case, which I hope will help that lady. In Sharjeel’s case, direct action has been taken by the Human Rights Minister in Pakistan, Dr Shireen Mazari—the head of the school has been suspended and an inquiry has been launched by the district education office.
That shows that when we raise individual cases of concern, we can make a difference. Of course, we need to do more. I therefore ask the Minister to keep a watchful eye on Sharjeel’s case and to raise it as soon as he can with his counterparts in Pakistan. At the same time, may I also draw his attention to the fact that around half a billion pounds of UK aid is spent every year in Pakistan? However, there is little evidence that the aid money is being used either to prioritise freedom of religion or belief in that country or to help persecuted minorities. In Pakistan, 5% of minorities should be given proper jobs but, due to a lack of education, many members of minority groups do not qualify.
I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Strangford and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for the work they have done, because they have not just been talking about the issue, as I am today; they actually went to Pakistan and brought back their concerns, as did Lord Alton, who has told me about the camps that many of these people are living in, because they could not support themselves. The camps lack even the most basic facilities—no running water, electricity or latrines. However, I understand from Lord Alton that no DFID staff member has ever visited the camps. May I ask the Minister to rectify that omission, in a country that receives so much UK aid?
Jeremy Lefroy
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who does a huge amount of work in this area, for mentioning development. Does she agree that development without freedom of religion or belief is development that will not achieve its ends?
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend puts it so well. He and I have seen that that is the case in many countries we have visited with the International Development Committee.
One of those countries is Nepal, where we met Christians who were greatly concerned—I am going back now three or four years—about restrictions on their freedom in that country. I thank the Minister, because I know that he has taken very seriously the concerns that we have expressed many times about such restrictions in Nepal. Actually, they are now far worse than they were even when we visited the country a few years ago. He knows much about the situation in Nepal, so I ask him once again to urge the Government of Nepal to repeal or amend sections 155 to 159 of the country’s new penal code. That code, which came into force just in August, severely restricts freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief. I have met people from Nepal who are now seriously concerned about being imprisoned as a result of speaking about their own faith in their own homes. That cannot be right.
[Steve McCabe in the Chair]
I also ask the Minister to call on the Government of Nepal to amend its constitution. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) mentioned constitutions being used to restrict freedom of belief. Again, the Government of Nepal have put in place elements of the constitution that are deeply concerning. Specifically, I ask the Minister to press the Government of Nepal to remove from the constitution any reference to restrictions on conversion, bringing it into line with the country’s obligations under article 18 of the international covenant on civil and political rights.
I will turn briefly to another matter: the persecution of Falun Gong in China. I commend the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston on her superb speech. She said so much to express the horror and incredulity that many of us felt when we heard about forced organ harvesting. It is almost beyond belief to hear reports that a Government are incarcerating people because of their beliefs, taking their blood and DNA samples, and then—this would appear to be the case, which is why the Minister must look into it—there is a request, almost to order, for an organ for transplant. If that is correct, it is horrendous. Of course, when the organs are removed, the victims die.
I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston for mentioning the report on that issue that the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission produced over two years ago. I do not like to go away from these events without presenting the Minister with something, so I handily have a copy of the report, which I will pass to him if he has not seen it. I ask that he acts on all the requests made by the hon. Lady. I ask that he raises the issue with the Chinese delegation at the next human rights dialogue with China, and asks why the practice appears to be continuing, despite the Chinese authorities’ announcement of a full transition to voluntary donations as long ago as 2015. If that is the case, let the Chinese authorities say so, because at the moment they are not confirming that.
I will now turn to a country that so far has not been mentioned: Russia. I will take this opportunity to pass to the Minister the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission’s latest report, launched just this Tuesday—it is on our website, conservativehumanrights.com—on human rights in Russia today. Time prohibits me from going into detail, but I hope he will read the report, particularly the several sections that are pertinent to today’s debate. Those sections deal with restrictions on freedom of expression, the press, assembly, association, and religion or belief. It is concerning to note how many religious groups other than the Russian Orthodox Church now face increasing restrictions in Russia.
The commission received detailed submissions from the European Association of Jehovah’s Christian Witnesses regarding the recent treatment of its members in Russia. In April, the Russian Supreme Court banned the Jehovah’s Witnesses as an “extremist” organisation. Those who continue to practise their faith—of whom there are 170,000—risk being prosecuted and jailed for up to 10 years. That is not just theory; it is happening. Evidence of widespread, specific cases of arrest, search, and seizure for interrogation and detention of Jehovah’s Witnesses is detailed in the report. I would be grateful if the Minister could raise those concerns with his Russian counterparts, or ask his colleagues to do so, when the opportunity arises. I hope that will be soon, because the report contains the names of over 100 individual prisoners who are currently in detention, specifically in connection with their rights to freedom of religion or belief. We ask the Minister to ensure that those names are drawn to the attention of the Russian authorities. They have come to our commission from the Memorial human rights centre.
Jeremy Lefroy
It is great to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. Russia has given so much to faith—to the Christian faith through the Orthodox faith, but also other faiths in other parts of Russia—and has benefited so much from faith. We recall Dostoyevsky, who was converted to Christianity through his experience in a labour camp under the Tsars. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is sad to see a country that has gained so much from faith behaving in this way?
Fiona Bruce
I agree wholeheartedly. I was saddened and deeply concerned by the stories we heard at first hand of intimidation, harassment, imprisonment—often including cruel treatment in prison—and repression of people in Russia because of their beliefs.
Jim Shannon
In my introduction, I referred briefly to eastern Ukraine, which Russia has annexed and taken over. Some Baptist pastors went missing in that area and are entirely unaccounted for. Churches have been destroyed and people have been restricted from being able to worship their God. Russia has control there.
Fiona Bruce
Yes. There are many other aspects of the report that time precludes me from going into, but there are indeed many geographical areas where persecution is taking place.
I would be grateful if the Minister agreed to meet my co-commissioners and me to discuss our report. We received some evidence in person from some important witnesses, including Marina Litvinenko—her husband, as Members will remember, was assassinated in London over a decade ago—and Bill Browder, whose lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, died in prison in Russia, as a result of which Mr Browder has campaigned internationally for justice and human rights in Russia. We also received evidence via Skype from Garry Kasparov, the world chess champion, who was driven into exile because he could not freely live his life according to his beliefs in Russia.
I will now turn to Nigeria—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) wants to speak about that country, so I will shorten my comments a little. A serious issue is occurring in Nigeria. I will refer first to my letter of 9 October to the Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), regarding the case of Leah Sharibu, one of 110 girls abducted by Boko Haram from their school in Dapchi. The other girls were all released some six months ago following negotiations, but Leah—the only Christian among them—remains in captivity because she refuses to convert in exchange for her freedom. She has now spent more than 200 days in captivity. Will the Minister speak with his ministerial counterpart, and perhaps respond to my question in that letter about what steps the UK Government can take to assist the Nigerian authorities in ensuring Leah’s swift and safe return?
I draw the Minister’s attention to concerns that nothing less than genocide is unfolding in Nigeria, with inadequate international attention paid to it. In recent years there has been an escalation in attacks on communities in several states by well-armed Fulani herdsmen. Local observers describe those attacks as a campaign of ethno-religious cleansing. Reports from Christian Solidarity Worldwide—an organisation whose work globally, and in this case in Nigeria, I also pay tribute to—say that
“the local chapter of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) recently revealed that herders have destroyed over 500 churches in Benue state alone since 2011.”
When I visited Nigeria over two years ago with the International Development Committee, my colleagues and I attended a roundtable of civil society representatives. One of those representatives was a senior member of the Christian Association of Nigeria, who highlighted concerns about the issue, saying that ethno-religious cleansing was happening. Sadly, insufficient notice of his concerns was taken by DFID representatives in Nigeria at the time. Two years later, the matter has significantly worsened. I implore the Minister to look into the situation. It has been exacerbated by inadequate Nigerian Government action, which CSW says has “entrenched impunity”.
The people being persecuted by those herdsmen need Government support, as the herdsmen are so brutal that individual communities are defenceless against them. Only yesterday evening, at a meeting of Nigerians, I spoke with someone who had lived in Nigeria until very recently. He told me that those herder militias are so brutal that even Boko Haram leaves them alone. They are armed with sophisticated weaponry, including AK47s, in some cases chemicals, and even rocket launchers. Those militias are believed to have murdered more people in 2015, 2016 and 2017 than Boko Haram, destroying, overrunning and seizing property and land, and displacing tens of thousands. It is not sufficient to say that they are simply traveller communities involved in farmer-herder clashes, attacking indiscriminately. That is what I heard when I was there.
Attacks on Christian communities by these herdsmen are becoming far too common. CSW reports that in the first quarter of 2018 they have perpetrated more than 100 attacks on communities in central Nigeria, claiming more than 1,000 lives. To give one example, in August a Nigerian pastor, Adamu Wurim Gyang, his three children and his wife were burnt alive when their house was set on fire in Abonong village. A clergyman, Ezekiel Dachomo, appealed in a video in September for assistance from the US, UK parliamentarians and the UN, saying:
“Please stand for us. We are dying…please allow us to survive. We have nobody. Only God in heaven can stand for us. Please, I am begging you. United Nations, your silence is getting worse…Please, please, I’m begging you stand for the helpless.”
The international community must hear these cries. Those of us who remember the barbaric genocide in Rwanda are reflecting now that history could be repeating itself. Will the Minister work with the UN to urge the Nigerian Government to develop effective solutions to bring an end to this atrocious violence?
Before I turn to my final country, I urge colleagues, in addition to commemorating International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day today, to support Red Wednesday on 28 November. I ask them to join calls for the Speaker to permit the buildings of Parliament—the Commons and the Lords—to be lit up red to highlight the concerns we have about these freedoms. I also ask them to urge local public buildings in their communities to do the same. A third day that I would like to draw colleagues’ attention to is specifically about victims of genocide. I tabled an early-day motion in July asking for support for an international day commemorating victims and survivors of religious persecution. If colleagues would be good enough to sign that EDM, we can perhaps bring the need to have a particular focus on victims and survivors much more into the international arena than we have to date.
I will move on to my final country, which is, as it was when we were last in this Chamber debating this issue, the UK. I rejoice that here in the UK we enjoy a significant heritage of prizing and protecting freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. We do not suffer persecution of the type we have heard about in many countries. However, I have become increasingly concerned in recent years about whether these freedoms are being adequately protected in practice in our country.
I welcome the recent Supreme Court judgment regarding Ashers Baking Company, where the Court ruled that the owners should not be compelled to promote a message that clashes with their own sincerely held biblical beliefs. The ruling has implications not simply for Christians or for religious people; it is an important safeguard for us all, because it upholds an important principle of freedom of expression—namely, that no one should be compelled to express a belief that they do not hold, still less a message with which they strongly disagree.
None the less, I want to sound two notes of caution in closing. First, although I am pleased by the Supreme Court judgment, I am concerned that the case progressed to anything like the extent it did through our courts. I am all the more concerned because its progress was reportedly funded at enormous public expense—to the tune of around a quarter of a million pounds—by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, and that is not to mention the fees of the McArthur family. Should the issue not have been sensibly resolved more quickly, and certainly without the trauma that the brave McArthur family must have endured to make the public stand they did? I pay tribute to them, as I do to the Christian Institute, which supported them. Why did a public body support the action? Why did the courts not uphold this important freedom much earlier in the process? As one part of the solution, I suggest that we need to see a redoubling of efforts to promote religious literacy in the judicial system.
Secondly, while underlining my welcome of the recent judgment and the vindication of the McArthur family, it is important to recognise that that does not negate the challenges faced by many other Christians in the UK on account of their Christian faith. I hope that the judgment is a turning point in securing a better, practical settlement in the protection in everyday life of religious freedom generally, not only for Christians, but for those with other beliefs. I hope that the judgment will encourage those who have sincere beliefs to speak out about them and not to feel that they are subject to what has been called “the chilling effect”, inhibiting them from doing so. I hope that we will see further evidence in coming months that judicially, politically and culturally our commitment to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as to freedom of expression, is deep and real here in the UK, even where that freedom may be politically or culturally inconvenient. In terms of religious freedom, we should stand as an exemplar beacon of hope to others who suffer far more gravely around the world.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to participate in this debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. Equally, it is an enormous honour for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who in so many ways stands as a beacon for all of us, particularly those of us who recently became Members, who share her deep convictions and principles. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he is my friend—on securing this debate. He is another shining beacon, an example and a city set on a hill in this regard and many others.
With this debate, we are talking about something that is fundamental to civilisation: freedom of religion or belief. It is a fundamental freedom. It is in so many ways the foundation freedom. I feel passionately about the subject because I am a member of a religious minority—the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—that has a long history of persecution and misrepresentation. Happily, those dark days are largely behind us, but the lessons learned are deeply ingrained and any suggestion of intolerance or persecution of any minority religious group or minority group of any kind is anathema to me, as I am sure it is to other hon. and right hon. Members.
The first President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith, declared the human right to exercise
“that free independence of mind which heaven has so graciously bestowed upon the human family is one of its choicest gifts”.
On another occasion, he said:
“Meddle not with any man for his religion: all governments ought to permit every man to enjoy his religion unmolested. No man is authorised to take away life in consequence of difference of religion, which all laws and governments ought to tolerate and protect, right or wrong.”
Freedom of religion or belief is a foundation human right as described in the universal declaration on human rights, which this coming December will be 70 years old. Article 18 reads:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
It is my sincere belief that it is a fundamental responsibility of Government to frame such laws as are necessary to secure for each individual citizen the free exercise of conscience and to hold these laws inviolate. To violate that right is to suppress the freedom of the human soul, and no Government can long exist in peace, nor can any society prosper, while citizens are denied such fundamental freedoms.
Earlier this year, the Pew Research Centre published its ninth annual study of global restrictions on religion. It is a comprehensive examination of freedom of religion or belief in 198 countries, and it showed that for the second year in a row there has been an increase in the overall level of restrictions imposed on freedom of religion or belief by Governments. The report states that the share of countries with high or very high levels of Government restrictions—that is, laws, policies and actions by officials that restrict religious beliefs and practices—rose from 25% to 28%. That is the highest percentage of high or very high levels of Government restrictions since 2013, and falls just below the 10-year peak of 29% in 2012.
Open Doors summarises the global trends of people being persecuted for their Christian faith. More than 200 million believers in 50 countries have experienced high levels of persecution because of their faith, and more than 3,000 Christians have been killed for their faith in the reporting period for 2018—more than twice as many in any previous reporting period. Each of Open Doors’ top 11 world watch list countries are now classified as places of extreme persecution—more countries than ever before in the 26 years of the world watch list.
Open Doors’ report highlights the deteriorating situations in Libya, Eritrea, India and Egypt. Countries where there is extreme persecution are North Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, Eritrea, Libya, Iraq and Yemen, many of which have been mentioned. For the 17th consecutive year, North Korea has been named the most dangerous place in the world to be a Christian, and sadly the situation in Afghanistan and Somalia is in many ways just as critical.
Sam Brownback, the recently appointed US ambassador- at-large for international religious freedom, has singled out the situation in China, which he describes as worsening for people of faith. The situation in China has been well documented, especially in the last few days, as reports of large-scale camps—euphemistically described as re-education centres or schools—have reached the west. As many as 1 million Muslims have been locked up in such camps without trial. In western China, the Uyghurs number some 12 million souls. They are Muslim people who live with the constant threat of arrest and censure by the Communist authorities. BBC journalist John Sudworth, whom I commend for his recent reports, states:
“Harsh new legal penalties have been introduced to curtail Islamic identity and practice—banning, among other things, long beards and headscarves, the religious instruction of children, and even Islamic-sounding names.”
Christian churches have long been the object of official Chinese attention. To register as a state-sanctioned Christian organisation, religious leaders must receive training to adapt doctrine to Government and Communist party thinking. Recent repression efforts target both house and state-sanctioned churches through the harassment and detention of Christian believers, blocking entry to sites of worship, interrupting gatherings, dismantling crosses, demolishing churches and disbanding congregations. Recently, the Chinese authorities have begun to insist on the installation of monitoring equipment in churches in Beijing.
Last month’s provisional deal between the Vatican and the Chinese Government is regarded as a key moment in decades of struggle over the Catholic Church’s right to appoint bishops in China. Pope Francis recently recognised the legitimacy of seven bishops approved and appointed by the Chinese Government. Yet a fundamental characteristic of freedom of religion is the right to Church autonomy to determine its own theology and doctrine, to establish membership standards and to own and manage sacred properties, and the right of its members to associate freely without unwarranted governmental or other official interference.
The position of Falun Gong practitioners, which has been mentioned, and Tibetan Muslims is also well documented, with both subjected to some of the worst extremes of Chinese oppression. Our view of China must be tempered by what we know about those fundamental abuses of human rights, and when we embrace China or seem to celebrate its contribution to the world, we must never forget or leave behind the many millions of people of faith who are persecuted and prosecuted by the Chinese authorities. What representations have been made recently by Her Majesty’s Government to China about the treatment of religious minorities?
Jeremy Lefroy
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that one of the questions to ask the Chinese Government is, “Why are you afraid of people of faith? They contribute so much to society. They’re not trying to undermine you. They may have a slightly different view on certain things. As Communists, you may proclaim atheism, although I suspect that quite a number of members of the Communist party do have a faith. What are you afraid of? You will benefit greatly from allowing people to fulfil their potential as sons and daughters of God.”
Stephen Kerr
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and associate myself entirely with the sentiment that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) expressed. There is nothing to fear when one has faith, well founded, and any system that fears people of faith is a system that is in deep trouble. Such is the nature of tyranny and oppressive regimes everywhere.
The Christian and Yazidi minorities of northern Iraq were decimated by Daesh in 2014. Iraq’s Christian community once numbered 1.5 million, but today probably fewer than 200,000 Christians remain. Mark Green, the administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, recently described the region in The Washington Post as
“a land of pain…It’s very clear what the Yazidi have gone through is as disturbing as I can describe, and is ongoing. They have families that have been broken up and disappeared, as well as murder, rape and torture.”
I pay tribute to the recently announced Nobel peace prize winners, the Congolese doctor Denis Mukwege and Nadia Murad, a Yazidi woman, for their efforts to end the use of sexual violence in conflict. Ms Murad is 25 years old. I have a son of a similar age. The Wall Street Journal, when reporting the award of the Nobel peace prize, wrote:
“Ms. Murad was among some 6,000 Yazidis who were rounded up by Islamic State militants when they overran northern Iraq in the summer of 2014.
Hundreds of adult men, including six of Ms. Murad’s brothers and stepbrothers, were murdered, while women and girls—as young as nine, the U.N. reported—were awarded to fighters who raped and sold them in slave markets. Ms. Murad escaped after three months and became one of the first Yazidi women to speak out about the horrors”.
Ms Murad wrote in August:
“We, and the Yazidi community generally, need more than sympathy.”
What is being done by Her Majesty’s Government to offer aid, protection and security to the Christian and Yazidi communities in northern Iraq?
Jeremy Lefroy
Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the work of the co-recipient of the Nobel peace prize, Denis Mukwege, who has also stood up bravely on behalf of particularly the women of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the face of the terrible civil strife that they have endured. Both those people exhibited enormous bravery and stood up for their beliefs.
Stephen Kerr
I, once again, thank my hon. Friend. I think I might have mispronounced the gentleman’s name when I mentioned him, for which I apologise, but I absolutely associate myself with what my hon. Friend has said.
To return to the case that has to be made and remade for the primacy of freedom of religion or belief, earlier this year the all-party group for freedom of religion or belief, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Strangford, welcomed Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Dr Daniel Mark, chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, to Parliament. I want to reflect on some of the remarks that Elder Christofferson made on that occasion because they are highly pertinent. He said that freedom of religion benefits not only believers but all of society, whether they know it or not. He tied religious freedom to the freedoms of worship, association, expression and opinion, and assembly, and from arbitrary arrest and detention, and interference in home and family, saying that all rights and liberties are mutually supportive, with freedom of religion as what he called,
“the root freedom in giving life to all others... Religious freedom protects the freedom of individual belief and expression in all areas of human activity. This enables people to develop and express their own opinions in matters of philosophy, politics, business, literature, art, science, and other areas, which naturally leads to social and political diversity.”
Elder Christofferson went on to say that freedom of religion connects to the rights of free speech, free expression, freedom of the press, and freedom peaceably to assemble, and that those basic freedoms tend to rise and fall together.
As I conclude, may I ask the Minister to consider the following questions? How will the Government respond to the commitments made at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in relation to freedom of religion or belief? How will such matters be followed up? In Washington in July, an event was sponsored by the US Administration at which there was something called the Potomac declaration and the Potomac plan of action, part of the first ever US-sponsored Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom. How can we ensure that such gatherings are not just more talk? How can we ensure that they are more than talk? Are we prepared to do more to stress the link between international development and adherence to article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights and perhaps even the Potomac declaration? Is Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon’s July appointment as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on freedom of religion or belief intended to be seen as an answer to what the United States calls an ambassador-at-large for freedom of religion or belief? What exactly is the extent of the remit that the noble Lord Ahmad now has?
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Another pertinent question would be: what resources has Lord Ahmad been given to carry out that specific function?
Stephen Kerr
I am grateful for that additional question on the role that the noble Lord has been given, which we all welcome and had long sought.
May I thank you, Mr McCabe, for the opportunity to participate in this important debate? I pay tribute to all my colleagues who have spoken or will speak in this debate, which I consider to be one of the most important debates that we hold annually. It allows us the opportunity to restate our collective, individual and national commitment to the principle of freedom of religion or belief—a freedom that I believe this place represents to the whole world.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I know that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whom I warmly congratulate on securing this debate, has a debate coming up on 27 November on the subject of armed violence against farming communities in Nigeria, most of whom are Christian. I will use the situation in Nigeria as an example of how we might approach the issue of religious freedom. Although this does not fall under my remit as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Nigeria, I do know the country and feel that I can comment in that context.
The federal and state Governments in Nigeria are prevented from adopting a state religion or discriminating in any way on religious grounds. The split between Christians and Muslims is almost exactly 50/50—there is about a 1% difference between the two. Although some 12 states follow sharia law, they do so for Muslim-to-Muslim relations, and it would be wrong to characterise an area in Nigeria as either Christian or Muslim. For example, although significant numbers of Christians live in the north, which is traditionally thought of as a Muslim area, there is no evidence of sharia courts being used for Christian activities unless they particularly want to raise a concern about a Muslim activity. Sharia law is simply for Muslim-to-Muslim activities.
Both Muslim and Christian groups in Nigeria have complained about the Government’s handling of disputes, particularly in the central band across the middle of the country where there are long-standing disputes between Christian farmers and Muslim herders involving rival claims and complaints that security forces did not intervene when farming villages were attacked by herdsmen. It is interesting to note that when farming villages were attacked by herdsmen, there was uproar in Abuja. The President was summoned to Parliament, as were service chiefs and security advisers, and they were subjected to intense pressure from parliamentarians. Equally, however, the media regularly report claims by Christians that northern leaders, backed by the Government, are trying to Islamise the whole of the country. Of course, the presence of Boko Haram is crucial to that.
Boko Haram is a terrorist organisation. It is not one that the Government can control. Although, with the help of British service personnel who are there as advisers, the Nigerian Government are trying to attack Boko Haram, Boko Haram will not be defeated by military means alone. It will be defeated by the country sharing in the wealth creation that is going on in Nigeria and by making sure it is shared at an individual level, so that people are offered something that Boko Haram cannot offer. There are already signs of success in that.
There have also been reports that Christian groups in northern states are not given building permits—I think that was raised earlier. So we have a situation where Christian communities decide they are simply going to build the churches that they want to and will wait until the Government come and bulldoze them, which they do from time to time. It has happened in various states. However, I also came across an example of a mosque in a similar situation. It was threatened with demolition because it did not have the right planning permit. This issue goes across religions, but we rarely hear about it. Unfortunately, it appears the demolition of the mosque was stopped before it went ahead, and no one quite knows why.
It is worth noting that Muslims, too, complain of a lack of freedom of religion more generally. In one case, a Muslim was denied the chance to be called to the Nigerian Bar simply because she wore a hijab. Christians also complain that it is difficult for them to be admitted into schools, especially to study medicine and engineering, and in many states it is also difficult for them to take courses in Christianity.
There are optimistic signs, however. Some good work is being done by religious leaders on both sides of the argument, including efforts to bring peace to the areas in question. Those were started as a result of the attacks between farmers and herdsmen, particularly after 300 farmers were killed by raiding herdsmen. The violence is related to religious differences, but we should not pretend that all the violence in Nigeria is the result simply of religious differences. Economic and social factors are involved as well.
Fiona Bruce
I absolutely acknowledge what my hon. Friend says. For example, many of the herdsmen, who used to have grazing grounds and could roam fairly freely, now find that the grazing grounds are restricted; but we cannot deny the element of ethnic or religious discrimination in the attacks—in large part, although not in all cases.
John Howell
I was not suggesting that religious differences played no part in the attacks, just that they are not the sole cause. We can legitimately blame a number of other factors, including the fact that the media misreport situations widely across Nigeria. We can also blame rapid population growth: the population of Nigeria is about 190 million at the moment, but the World Bank predicts that by 2050—not long hence—it will be 400 million, making it the third most populous country in the world, after India and China. In that situation it is not surprising that tensions arise.
The tensions do have religious aspects. On 15 April 2017, 12 worshippers died and many more were injured in Aso village in Kaduna state, when herdsmen opened fire on an Easter vigil service. Media reports said the attackers boasted about disrupting the Easter celebration, but it not known whether that is true. There are efforts to promote interfaith dialogue, to ensure that feelings on all sides are listened to and that reconciliation is reached.
I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) with a point about the importance of the European Court of Human Rights and what I might term its parent body, the Council of Europe. The right to hold religious beliefs is protected under article 9 of the European convention on human rights. A wide range of faiths have brought cases to protect their freedom to practise religion. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) about needing to tighten that up, but it depends on countries being willing to accept the judgments of the Court. Russia has suspended itself from the Council of Europe and can no longer appoint judges, although the population of Russia still has access to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court is hearing a vast number of cases brought by Russian individuals against the Russian state.
That is important for the reason that I raised earlier. The European Court of Human Rights was born out of the conflict of world war two, which had a great deal to do with religion—the Jewish faith and the imprisonment of those of that faith in concentration camps. However, the Council has gone beyond that. We have produced a tremendous number of reports about the need to ensure respect for the religious backgrounds of refugee families coming to Europe—that must of course be mutual, and respect should also come from them. We must not forget the vital role that the Council plays. It may be ignored by many UK Ministers and the UK may be the only country never to send a journalist to monitor its actions, but it still carries out its role and the treaties are signed, by us and others, on a consensual basis. That is an important point to bear in mind.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford on bringing the debate, and hope my remarks have been helpful in elucidating some of the details.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr McCabe. We know that God is shining on us when there is a Scotsman in the Chair in Westminster Hall. I say that as an atheist. I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate on an issue that he has championed consistently and with depth. It feels almost rude of me to say these things with my back to him, but I hope that he will take the words in the spirit in which they are meant. He has always stood up for the right of those of faith, and those of none, to go about their lives in the way they want.
Many Members have given examples illustrating the deeply horrifying and sinister persecution that takes place in countries around the world against different religious minorities. I have no desire to repeat those, but I want to single out one Member who spoke, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. She has a long-standing interest in their plight and does a good job chairing the group. I am only sorry that I cannot get to more of the meetings.
Many hon. Members will remember the case of Asad Shah, mentioned by the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr). He was the Ahmadi shopkeeper from my constituency, on the south side of Glasgow, who was brutally killed. He was loved by everybody; there was not a person with a bad thing to say about him. He was a traditional shopkeeper: the self-service machines in Tesco were not for him; it was for him to fill the basket. People went in as customers and left as friends. He was brutally taken from us because of religious persecution.
I shall never forget that night. The shop where he was killed is about a four-minute walk from my front door. I remember seeing on social media that something had happened. No one quite knew what. I thought, “I am not going to sit up and worry about this. I am going to go to bed.” In the morning, I woke up to the worst possible news: the friendly shopkeeper had been slaughtered on the streets of my constituency. Afterwards, I saw something that I hope never to have to see again. People were rallying outside his shop, which sadly has since had to close because his family have had to leave Glasgow altogether. Hundreds of people had come together to stand in silence and remember a much loved and gentle man. Every time I saw him, he was always friendly. I do not think he ever remembered my name; I was just “Mr SNP” every time I went into his shop. I can assure the House that I have been called worse.
All of us on the south side of Glasgow remember Asad Shah with great affection. We will always be horrified at how he was taken from us and at the motivation behind it. The scenes of solidarity on that Friday night were quite something to see, but I hope I never have to see them again.
I wish the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden the very best in her work to address the plight of the Ahmadi people. As you will know, Mr McCabe, the south side of Glasgow has a substantial Muslim community. There are many Muslim people whom I count as friends and who are fairly progressive even on issues such as gay rights, but I am always amazed that the minute I mention Ahmadi Muslims, something happens—a shutter seems to come down. People keep telling me, “Stewart, it’s best that you don’t bring up the subject in other mosques or with other Muslims. It won’t help you at the next election.” However, it is vital that the hon. Lady and I, along with other hon. Members present, continue to shine a light on it.
Siobhain McDonagh
One of the most shocking things to come out of the inquiry that our all-party group has just undertaken is that there seems to be gloom about any progress against the persecution of the Ahmadis. The younger generation in Pakistan appears to be more wedded to harassment of Ahmadis than the older generation, so we are in for decades of this. Nor should we assume that all Members of this House share the view that the hon. Gentleman espouses. Discrimination exists among our own ranks.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I think it was the hon. Member for Stirling who said that we have to continually make the case for religious freedom, just as we do for women’s rights, gay rights, ethnic minority rights or any other kind of social progress, because history tells us that someone somewhere will always be waiting to take those rights away.
Let me turn to a subject that has not yet been mentioned. The first debate that I secured as an MP was a debate in this Chamber on human rights in Saudi Arabia. My primary reason for securing it was the case of the jailed Saudi writer Raif Badawi, whom the Saudi Government considered to have committed the crime of apostasy. Here is a man who needs freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. His wife and their three beautiful children now have to live in Canada. He was sentenced to 1,000 lashes and is still in prison, as well as facing a massively unaffordable fine that he will never be able to pay.
I understand that Saudi Arabia is a very tough country and that there are many reformers who have to walk an incredibly fine line—it is never black and white. However, I want to hear more about what the Government are doing about Raif Badawi’s case. We hear constantly that it is being held up at the Supreme Court, yet the human rights organisations that I have talked to cannot see any evidence of that.
Saudi Arabia has been brought into sharp focus recently because of events in its consulate in Turkey. I echo what my party’s Westminster leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), told the Prime Minister yesterday: the time has come for a fundamental shift in the relationship between this kingdom and that kingdom on the issue of arms sales. This dance with the devil has gone on for too long, and it has to change.
I will bring my remarks to a close soon, because the Minister is the man we are all here to hear from. First, however, I must mention one religious group who have been persecuted more than any other in history: the Jewish people. They have been hunted from every single corner of the world for hundreds of years. It still happens today, even in this country. For the sake of hon. Members who were not present at our debate on antisemitism earlier this year, let me repeat what I said then.
In every city I go to, whether on holiday or on an official visit, I always try to visit the Jewish museum. I love visiting museums in many different cities, but the only museums in which I have to check in my backpack, take off my coat and go through airport-style security are the Jewish museums. It is the same in Paris, Berlin, New York or any other city. Why is that? Why do Jewish schools, even in this country, need security outside them? Why do synagogues around Europe need armed security? Many people think that the persecution of the Jewish people is over, but only a fool would think that.
It is a source of great pride that Scotland is, I think, the only country that has never had an antisemitic law on the statute book. Indeed, the declaration of Arbroath, the oldest medieval text in the world, refers to Jews and Gentiles as equals. That is not to say that everything in Scotland was a picnic; of course it was not. There are positive things in our history, but we should never take them for granted.
I welcome this debate, and I welcome the fact that there is an international day to celebrate freedom of religion or belief. Although I do not have a religion or a religious belief, I will stand with hon. Members who do. We will constantly make the case for people’s freedom to worship or not worship, as they see fit. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I would like to start by thanking the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), because I was going to begin my speech by mentioning the case of the Jews, as he and many others have done. I know that hon. Members wish to hear from the Minister, but I ask them to bear with me as I sum up for the Opposition.
I am reminded of a particular case that is close to my heart; I hope hon. Members will forgive me if they have heard it before. It is the case of Raina Sevilla, a Jewish woman who moved from Switzerland to Paris in 1934 in the belief that France was a safe place for Jews to live. Just six years later, after the fall of Paris to the Nazis, she was asked, along with so many other Jews in Paris, to register and wear the yellow star. Some months later, she was picked up in the middle of the night and taken to the Vel’ d’Hiv, the velodrome in the middle of Paris. In June or July 1942, along with so many others, she was taken from there to Drancy, the makeshift concentration camp on the north-east outskirts of Paris, near the railhead at Bobigny. The next day she was taken to Auschwitz-Birkenau, where she was sent, along with many thousands of other older women and children, to the gas chambers. She was my great-grandmother. That is why this debate matters, and why it means so very much to all of us.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow South for taking up the case of the Jewish people. I am not a religious man either, but I am Jewish. Every single one of us knows where religious intolerance can end, because we have seen it. History teaches it to us. Every single Member this afternoon has given a brilliant speech telling us why this debate, timed to coincide with the International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day, is so appropriate, so important and so essential to the very essence of our existence as a Parliament in this free country of ours.
I pay tribute to my good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I hope that he does not mind me calling him my good friend. We have worked closely together over many years. He gave his thanks to the Government for their support and for the good work done, and for what is still to be done. I know that we will hear from the Minister shortly about how that will be developed. All Governments in this country, of every party, have supported the right that we value so greatly.
The hon. Gentleman talked about forced organ harvesting in China, as others have done this afternoon, and the Falun Gong, a religious minority in China who are being persecuted in astonishingly horrific ways. There are many parallels with what the Jews have suffered, especially during the second world war. He mentioned Chinese Muslims, who have been in the news recently. I have had emails, as I am sure have many other Members, from constituents who are angry and upset at what they hear in the media. It is good that our free media is able to report that, but it is tragic what they have to report and that this is still going on.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the abductions in Punjab and the Rohingya people in Myanmar, as did other Members. He made some positive suggestions, which I know the Minister will examine in his summing up. He talked about an area that is a concern to me as shadow Minister for the middle east and north Africa—Egypt and the torture, disappearances and executions of Christians. He mentioned his comprehensive five-point plan to help stop religious persecution abroad. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) is one of my very favourite colleagues; we worked together on the International Development Committee for three years. In his excellent speech, he talked about the importance of freedom of religious belief, but he also said it was vital to stand up for all those abroad who suffer from persecution—that faith communities themselves must stand up against persecution not of their own faith but of other faiths in other countries. That is an essential point for all of us to remember. He talked about the role of the Court of Human Rights, which is fundamental to who we are as a country. I totally agree with that sentiment, and so does my party. Social media is a great invention, but the abuse and misuse of it has to be stopped in some way. I hope that we, not as legislators but as individuals, might have the power to do that.
My colleague and hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) spoke about her recent trip to Pakistan and the warm reception she received. I have experienced that myself on visits to Pakistan. She mentioned the persecution of the Falun Gong in China, many of whom I have met over the years. Sadly she is now also familiar with the plight they endure day in, day out. She mentioned the 2016 report on transplant programmes in China, and we thank her for the detail she gave—the 60,000 to 100,000 organ transplants per year. Where are those organs coming from? I am afraid the conclusion that we have to draw is the organ harvesting that is so widely documented and evidenced now. It is the tip of an iceberg, as she said. She told us more about Pakistan and the ongoing persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims, and I will come to that in a minute.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) made an excellent speech. He said that the right to believe in “your own faith, which is not necessarily my faith” is a fundamental one, and that he welcomed this debate each year. He spoke of how cracking down on religious belief always leads to cracking down on every other freedom. He referred also to North Korea and the shocking abuses there. It is the most repressive country in the world and is completely opposed to any freedom of religion, except the one religion that matters—the ability to worship the leader. There are still, in spite of all that, so many Christians still alive and active, and it is a tribute to human nature and the extraordinary conviction of people of faith and of no faith that those Christians, alone and abused and banned from practising their faith, can practice it in the holes in the grounds or the toilets, or wherever it may be in those forced labour camps. Let us hope that we see an end to those, sooner rather than later.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). I pay tribute to the work she has done, year in year out, to draw attention to the plight of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in this and other countries around the world. She detailed the worldwide persecution of that community in her tour d’horizon of all the countries in the world where they are persecuted for their faith. She mentioned the tragic murder of the shopkeeper Asad Shah in Glasgow, as did the hon. Member for Glasgow South, who knew that gentleman. It was absolutely shocking. Listening to my hon. Friend, I was reminded of what the Nazis did to the Jews in Germany. The way they are being treated is so very similar. We have to stand up for them and that is up to all of us. My hon. Friend mentioned the scourge of extremism being a stain on our reputation in our country, a country renowned throughout the world for its religious tolerance. It is our duty as Members of Parliament to stand up against it.
I give huge praise to my friend, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). We also served together on the International Development Committee for three years. As well as enjoying our time together, I learned a lot from her. We travelled across many countries where we saw the excellent work of the Department for International Development. She took us around the world in great detail. I will not reiterate that detail, because we want to hear from the Minister. She mentioned shocking cases in Pakistan, including that of Sharjeel and the positive response to the international condemnation, which means that this House can do something to draw attention to such horrors and persecution.
The hon. Lady also talked—this is very relevant—of the £500 million of taxpayers’ money that this country spends on aid in Pakistan, none of which is spent on promoting religious tolerance and education. She also mentioned Nepal—I have visited that country many times—and its new penal code. Let us hope that it sees sense and responds to international pressure to rescind that article of the penal code and to change its constitution. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Falun Gong. She also talked about Russia, which we have not debated very much so far this afternoon, and the report of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. It is an excellent organisation—here is a Labour shadow spokesperson talking about a Conservative body, but any organisation or political body that draws attention to this kind of persecution should be praised by all of us, and I praise the hon. Lady for that work. She talked about what Boko Haram is doing in Nigeria, and the kidnapped girls. I thank her for reminding us that there is one child left—the one Christian girl. We need to campaign for her release too.
The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) spoke of freedom of religion as a fundamental human right and noted that, for the seventh year in a row, we have seen an increase in governmental restrictions on religious freedom. He talked about Afghanistan and Somalia, which we have not heard very much about.
The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) has always contributed to these debates and has always had much to say in his area of expertise, which is Nigeria. We all benefit from that and I am grateful to learn more about Nigeria, especially as we know about the 50:50 split between Muslims and Christians. Generally, in spite of all the turmoil, including the vastly increasing population and the problems they face, there is actually a lot of good work going on in Nigeria. It is important that we remember that many nations that face problems of religious tolerance and freedom are doing their very best against such a backdrop.
The hon. Member for Henley used one word that is important throughout this whole debate: respect. It is a word that we do not hear too often these days. We need to show more respect, not just for one another in this place, but for those who have a different way of life and a different approach to life—a completely different faith from that which we may or may not have—and emphasise their right to live by that faith, underpinned by the relevant articles.
Let me say just a few words about human rights. The hon. Member for Stirling mentioned article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which I will not go through again. There is also article 18 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, which is very similar, and article 9 of the European convention on human rights, which clearly says much the same as well. We have many of these articles worldwide that confirm the right to religious freedom, yet we see it being abused so much all over the world.
I will not repeat what hon. Members have already said about different countries around the world. We should look to ourselves as well. According to data released by the Community Security Trust, a Jewish organisation in the United Kingdom, the number of antisemitic incidents in the UK rose by more than a third to record levels in 2016, and it has risen again since then. I know that the Government will be doing all they can to stop that, but according to the Metropolitan police here in London, the number of hate crimes against Muslims has increased from 343 incidents in 2013 to 1,260 in 2016. The Casey review highlighted just three years ago that at least 55% of the general public believe there is a fundamental clash between Islam and British society values. We all need to work to change that. The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Lord Ahmad, said in 2017:
“The persecution of individuals based on their religion or belief remains of profound concern to the United Kingdom. The freedom to practise, change or share one’s faith or belief without discrimination or violent opposition is a fundamental human right, and the UK Government are committed to defending this human right and promoting respect and tolerance between religious communities.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 5P.]
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for summing up for his party. One of the most important things about this issue is that it should be considered on a cross-party basis. That is not to say that there will not at times be disagreements about how we go about trying to promote freedom of religious belief, but I am pleased that he made such a strong case on behalf of the Opposition. We need to work together, and I make an open offer to him and to the SNP spokesman: if they want to come to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to learn more about the precise nature of the deep work that is done in this area, I would be only too happy for them to do so. That might be useful, given that we will have many more such debates.
I disagreed with one thing that the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) said. This really is not about the Minister; it is about everyone else. These are Back-Bench debates, and while I shall try to answer the matters raised—please forgive me if I fail to do so; I will take some things up in writing—I have spent long enough on the Back Benches, rather than in a ministerial office, to recognise that it is very important to ensure that everyone has their say, instead of spending too much ministerial time on these issues. The hon. Gentleman also touched on Saudi Arabia, which is slightly outside the main scope of today’s debate, and I do not want to put a foot wrong by giving him incorrect information, so if he will forgive me, I will write to him in detail afterwards.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on marking International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day once again. I am glad for my own good that it is a once-a-year occasion, but I know that, like many Members here, he takes this very seriously, 365 days a year. As ever, I pay great tribute to him and to all members of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief for their tireless and persistent advocacy on this issue around the world. This Saturday, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London and our posts across the globe will be marking the day in a variety of ways, all of which are designed to demonstrate the UK’s steadfast commitment to this fundamental human right.
That commitment is part of our broader policy of defending and promoting universal human rights and freedoms, which are a vital component of the rules-based international system. Freedom and equality must remain the bedrock of democracy, the form of government that we all recognise as delivering security, wellbeing and, hopefully, high levels of prosperity for all citizens. Promoting human rights also goes hand in hand with open markets and free trade, which nurture economic prosperity alongside genuine security and stability. Those are the conditions that ensure that all citizens can enjoy their political rights and freedoms. That is why we remain at the forefront of states that promote universally a culture of respect for human rights. I am very excited at the prospect of having both France and Germany on the Security Council over the next two years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) pointed out, which will mean having three large, western European nations with great reach across the globe, hopefully being able to make a real impact in this area.
We embrace the work that engages foreign Governments, both bilaterally and in multilateral forums such as the UN Human Rights Council. I reiterate all sentiments about the European Court of Human Rights as an important pillar for ensuring that we move forward correctly. It also invites work on ambitious campaigns on totemic issues: we work on eradicating modern slavery, preventing sexual violence in conflict, and promoting gender equality in all aspects of life, but notably in girls’ education—something that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is very committed to. On the back of our own Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting here in London, we are working with 52 other nations across the Commonwealth to ensure 12 years of education for all girls around the world.
Let me say a little bit about Lord Ahmad’s role—it was brought up, and I feel it is worth touching on. The UK Government remain active at the highest levels, not least within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in standing up for the rights of people of all faiths and of none. The Prime Minister’s appointment in July of my noble Friend the Minister for Human Rights as her special envoy on freedom of religion or belief signalled the UK’s determination to step up our action to address religious discrimination and to promote mutual understanding and respect. It is important to recognise that the title of Prime Minister’s special envoy makes a real difference. It opens a lot of doors for anyone in that role, and it is a respected title across the world.
Lord Ahmad will lead renewed and targeted international efforts on this issue, including by raising awareness of the benefits to society of religious diversity and respect for all faiths and for none, which many Members have mentioned. His first objective is to up the tempo of the UK’s response to violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief and to focus on certain countries in particular. As colleagues know, promoting human rights, and specifically advocating for freedom of religion or belief, has long been a focus of the work of our embassies, high commissions and consulates general overseas.
Fiona Bruce
I hope the Minister can tell us whether Lord Ahmad is being provided with any additional resources and staff support to fulfil this additional role, as we have seen in countries such as Canada and, I think, the US. He already has a ministerial role, so what are the Government doing to enhance his support in this additional role?
Mark Field
I was going to come to that, because it was raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). Let me set out Lord Ahmad’s objectives. He will have two additional full-time staff working alongside our diplomatic network and international partners to work across Departments for a step change on freedom of religion or belief within diplomacy, to promote FORB in key countries of concern—obviously those will change from time to time, with their particular circumstances—and to respond effectively to any instances of the suppression of FORB that we are made aware of. I appreciate that there are only two members of staff, but there will be a greater emphasis on that issue in our embassies and high commissions overseas, not least among those who are employed locally.
I have raised the issue of freedom of religious belief on my travels over the past few months—for example, with the Nepalese Prime Minister. I have raised our concerns about the deteriorating human rights situation in Xinjiang with the Chinese Vice Premier. The Foreign Secretary reiterated our concerns about Xinjiang with Chinese state councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi when he visited in July. As hon. Members have said, we have increasingly grave concerns about the human rights situation in China and the Chinese Government’s deepening crackdown. Credible reports have been published recently about re-education camps and widespread surveillance and restrictions targeted at ethnic minorities. That issue has been covered in The Economist and elsewhere for some months.
Lord Ahmad has been extremely active in promoting human rights, including the freedom of religion or belief, in Sudan. For example, he expressed our serious concern about the persecution of Christians and the wanton destruction of places of worship. At the recent UN General Assembly in New York, in a meeting we hosted, to which many other countries were invited, he drew attention to the scourge of antisemitism and to the UN report on the crisis in Burma, which concluded that the Burmese military may have inflicted genocide. It has certainly carried out ethnic cleansing and has committed crimes against humanity against the Rohingya.
For the avoidance of any doubt, genocide is a legal term, so my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) will understand that we therefore tend not to use it. We do not wish to downplay the issue, but the term is legal rather than political, and it makes more sense for us to focus on political issues on which we can hold people to account directly.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the Minister for pointing that out. I used the term advisedly in this respect today.
Mark Field
I appreciate that.
Earlier in the year, Lord Ahmad met a range of religious leaders in Israel to discuss their concerns. He also met Yazidi and Christian leaders in Iraq to hear about their experiences and to reiterate the UK’s commitment to freedom of religion or belief across Iraq.
A number of hon. Member raised the especially distressing case of Asia Bibi. I assure hon. Members that we have been following the case very closely. I have made plain our views, and will continue to do so as a matter of principle, about the death penalty, let alone for that particular charge, and about the injustices that minorities in Pakistan face. I have made a number of representations to Pakistani authorities at all levels. We are at a highly sensitive moment in that very distressing case, so I am not able explain publicly what we and international partners are saying privately to the Pakistani authorities.
There are lots of issues to cover, so hon. Members will have to forgive me if there are things that I am unable to cover. If time runs away from me, I will catch up with hon. Members subsequently in writing. The hon. Member for Strangford raised a number of issues that I hope I have already covered. On DFID, we want to work with Lord Ahmad on a cross-governmental basis. I will say a bit more about that later.
I think I have covered the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) raised. I confess that I could not agree more with what he said; it was very refreshing. It makes life easier for us if we can say, “This is not special pleading because there are Christian groups here. The Christian groups want to see the rights of all religious groups upheld. This is a human rights issue first and foremost.” That makes our argument so much more powerful. I echo my hon. Friend’s very valuable point.
The hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) touched on a number of very important issues. The issue of organ harvesting is almost unbelievable. She will understand that, although I am not questioning the reports in any way, we need to get to the bottom of exactly what has happened. She will be aware that, in the past, organs have been harvested from people who have been executed. It is a grisly situation. We remain deeply concerned about the persecution of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Falun Gong practitioners and others in China simply because of their religious belief. We believe that societies that aim to guarantee freedom of religion are more stable, prosperous and resilient to violent extremism. The very wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on this matter were right. What have they got to fear? China is moving ahead in the world, including in terms of prosperity. The hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston will appreciate why arguments about culture in particular have to be made privately, but please be assured that we do make our concerns felt.
It was interesting that the hon. Lady talked about Kachin and Shan states in Burma, rather than about the Rohingya situation, which has been discussed and on which a huge amount of work is being done in the international community. We are very concerned about the ongoing violence and we do not take the view that that part of Burma is stable and secure. There are human rights concerns, particularly relating to Christians, about those areas, which are run by both the Burmese army and armed ethnic groups. We raised concerns about the treatment of ethnic minorities in Burma, including in Kachin and Shan, in the Human Rights Council in September 2017. The former Foreign Secretary raised the matter during his March 2018 visit to Burma, and the new Foreign Secretary went to Burma and met Aung San Suu Kyi as recently as September this year. I know that all hon. Members will continue to press the Government of Burma on the crucial need for interfaith dialogue and religious tolerance.
The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) touched on the reports that Pakistani refugees are rounded up and placed in detention centres in Thailand when they are assessed to be of the Ahmadi religion. We are following the recent deterioration in Thailand and will continue to do so. It is particularly sad, because there has been progress in many of these areas in that country in recent years. We understand that there are approximately 100 people, mainly from Pakistan, whom the Thai authorities consider to be illegal immigrants, and this follows arrests of Cambodian and Vietnamese nationals at the end of August. We understand that about 200 people claim refugee and asylum status and are in immigration detention. Some of them are already registered under the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I am in touch with David Miliband on that matter.
We believe that the recent orders are not aimed at any specific group but apply to anyone the Thai authorities deem to be an illegal visa overstayer, as part of the general tightening of immigration enforcement. In September, a senior official from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office raised our concerns about the treatment of those in immigration detention with the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We will continue to work with the Thai authorities to improve detention conditions. The hon. Members for St Helens South and Whiston and for Mitcham and Morden will have to forgive me for not saying any more now. If we have more to pass on, we will try to do so in writing, but let us make sure we stay in touch on this issue.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has been a great advocate for the Ahmadis, and we have discussed the matter previously in the House. As she is aware, Lord Ahmad is of that religion, and she can be assured that he will raise the issue across the globe at every appropriate opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton raised a number of issues. I raised concerns about freedom of religious belief with Nepal’s Prime Minister Oli when I met him on 6 May during my visit to Kathmandu. I sought the same sort of assurances that my hon. Friend sought from me on precisely how the penal code was to be enforced, and we made it very clear that we would be very reluctant to see it being used to restrict full freedom of religious practice, especially for religious minorities.
In addition, our embassy in Nepal—we have a tremendous ambassador there in Richard Morris—regularly discusses human rights issues including freedom of religious belief with the Government of Nepal. Nepal does not receive a huge amount of DFID money, which is one of our concerns. We feel that it would be appropriate to have a number of other DFID programmes in Nepal—we have a tremendous historical connection, particularly between the Gurkhas and the Ministry of Defence—but we undertake significant work in that regard.
We have been closely monitoring the legal provision on freedom of religious belief included in the reforms to the national penal code in Nepal. The embassy has heard the concerns of the interfaith council—in fact, I heard them myself at a meeting in early May—about the lack of provision for registering religious organisations and the problems that they face in trying to conduct their day-to-day activities as non-governmental organisations, so we are keeping that under a fairly constant review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley is a great advocate for Nigeria and has done a tremendous job as a trade envoy there—I know how much work goes into that. I know there is to be a full debate on the situation in Nigeria, for which we will have more evidence, and I suspect it will be either for me or for the Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), to respond to that debate. For now, let me say that the Prime Minister raised the issue with President Buhari during her visit to Nigeria in the summer, and emphasised the need to tackle the crisis through mediation and conciliation—the general community conflict advice. With the wisdom that comes from knowing more about that country, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley was absolutely right to identify that the situation is more than a simple religious issue. It is a little more complicated it might appear, although there are clear religious elements. In her representations, the Prime Minister was clear that the violence must stop while work is done to meet the needs of all affected communities. The Foreign Secretary raised the subject when he wrote to his counterpart in August, and the British high commissioner in Abuja has raised the issue with the Nigerian vice-president, with President Buhari’s chief of staff, and with a number of other governors of affected states.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr). He spoke about a number of issues, some of which I have touched on, namely the concerns about DFID funding and the Yazidis in Iraq.
I know we are running out of time, so I will finish by stressing that this is not just an issue for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. One of the most important things I do in much of my work on matters ranging from climate change to international energy policy or cyber-security, is recognise that one of the great strengths of our sometimes much-maligned system of government—we are perhaps a little too self-deprecating about it—is the international reach of our Foreign and Commonwealth Office through the number of posts that it has across the world. We feel that it is important to take the UK’s work on religious freedom forward—it is very much a “One HMG” effort, as we put it. For example, the Department for International Development has increased its own engagement on the issue, which I think is very important, although it is a probably a step too far at the moment for development aid to be contingent on money coming through for that sort of work, as one or two of my hon. Friends were suggesting.
I am always struck by the fact DFID money goes to help some of the most vulnerable people. For example, we have had strong difficulties with Cambodia. We have tried to engage, but I think that, for example, paring back our funding for demining on the basis that we had disagreements about press freedom in Cambodia would have been the wrong step to take. By staying committed to a range of development and aid work, we can at least keep some sort of dialogue going, even if we might disapprove of that Government’s actions. That begins to build a degree of trust, and we can start moving in the right direction in other areas.
Although I understand the points rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, ending that assistance would be a retrograde step. If we get the development issues right and recognise that development is an integral part of a state’s recovery—that notion applies to Pakistan in particular, which is the single biggest recipient of DFID funds—we can hope that having a piece of the action in that respect buys us a place at the table to continue to make plain representations and achieve movement in the right direction. We should not hold out huge hopes in all individual cases, but I will take on board the important concerns expressed my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and make sure that they are passed back to Islamabad.
Mark Field
I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me but I am worried about running out of time, and I know that the hon. Member for Strangford will also want to get a word in at the end.
DFID’s wider programme is also designed to benefit religious minorities. As I touched on, in Iraq some £237.5 million in humanitarian support has helped Christians, Yazidis and other minorities who have been forced to flee persecution by Daesh. At the Foreign Office, we have also increased our support for freedom of religion or belief through the Magna Carta fund to over £1 million. That will fund projects in countries such as Burma, Indonesia, Iraq and Sudan.
Respect in education is a key element of our freedom of religion or belief strategy. Children are not born prejudiced; sadly, prejudice is learned. It does not have to be that way, and we believe that more should be done in schools to ensure that children remain as open minded as possible and respectful of difference. As the hon. Member for Leeds North East rightly said, respect is the operative word here. We believe that it is not simply enough to promote tolerance; indeed, that word alone suggests a begrudging acceptance. We plan to create a step-by-step guide for teachers and schools around the world to draw them into best practice and help them foster greater respect for different faiths and beliefs.
Naturally, learning does not end at school, and colleagues may recall that when we last debated this issue, I mentioned our efforts to increase religious literacy across the civil service. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to know that our collaboration with the LSE Faith Centre is proving extremely popular, and annual faith and diplomacy courses for staff across Whitehall are now very well attended. In addition to such projects and initiatives, we continue to promote the issue internationally with our bilateral advocacy. We work with like-minded partners as well as with civil society across the globe.
The UK Government remain absolutely convinced of the key importance of freedom of religion or belief, not just because it is a basic human right, but because it goes hand in hand with all the other rights and democratic freedoms that make up the foundations of a fair, stable and successful society. That is why my ministerial colleagues and I are committed to promoting and protecting freedom of religion, and I am so pleased that that applies to Parliament more widely. I thank everyone for their contributions. Through Government, we shall work and strive for a better world—a world in which there is greater mutual understanding and respect, where everyone is able to practise their faith or to hold no faith at all, and to live the life that they choose.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his energy and deep interest in the subject of our debate, and for the steps that he and his Department have taken, which we all acknowledge. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), and all right hon. and hon Members for their insight and powerful contributions.
Today, this Chamber has been a place where a voice for the voiceless was heard. I will finish with the words of a man of faith and a scriptural text pertinent to the debate, 2 Corinthians 4:8-9:
“We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed.”
I thank the Minister and all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to a debate that will mean much to people whom we may never met, but who greatly value what we can do for them in this House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered international freedom of religion or belief day 2018.
Written Statements
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
CPS: Reappointment of Chief Inspector
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox)
I am today announcing the reappointment of Kevin McGinty CBE as the Chief Inspector of HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate for a further two years. Mr McGinty was appointed in April 2015 for four years and his contract was due to finish on 31 March 2019.
The Prime Minister has been notified of this reappointment. Also, this role is subject to scrutiny by the Justice Select Committee. The Committee, to which I am most grateful has been consulted and fully supports the reappointment.
[HCWS1032]
Cabinet Committees and Implementation Task Forces
(5 years, 12 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)
Today I am publishing the updated list of Cabinet Committees and implementation task forces (ITFs).
The updated list includes a new National Security Council (Cross-Government Funds) Sub-Committee, which will provide strategic direction to the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund and the Prosperity Fund.
Copies of the associated documents will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-cabinet-committees-system-and-list-of-cabinet-committees
[HCWS1035]
EU Exit
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Dominic Raab)
Section 18 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 conferred a legal obligation for a Minister of the Crown to lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement in writing outlining the steps taken by Her Majesty’s Government to seek to negotiate an agreement, as part of the framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the EU, for the United Kingdom to participate in a customs arrangement with the EU, before 31 October 2018.
The Government published a White Paper earlier this year setting out their proposal for the UK’s future relationship with the EU, including a new customs arrangement. The UK proposed the establishment of a free trade area for goods that would avoid friction at the border, protect jobs and livelihoods, and ensure that the UK and the EU could meet their commitments to Northern Ireland and Ireland through the overall future relationship. The new customs arrangement would support this by removing the need for customs checks and controls at the border between the UK and the EU, while allowing the UK to forge new trading relationships with partners around the world.
The UK would apply the EU’s tariffs and trade policy for goods intended for the EU, and the UK’s tariffs and trade policy for goods intended for the UK. Mirroring the EU’s customs approach at its external border would ensure that goods entering the EU via the UK have complied with EU customs processes and the correct EU duties have been paid. This would include the UK maintaining a common customs rulebook with the EU. It would remove the need for customs declarations, routine requirements for rules of origin, and entry and exit summary declarations. Together with the wider free trade area, the new customs arrangement would preserve frictionless trade for the majority of UK goods trade, and reduce frictions for UK trade with the rest of the world through a range of unilateral and bilateral facilitations. The UK’s goal is to facilitate the greatest possible trade, whether with the EU or the rest of the world. There would need to be a phased approach to implementation of the model.
The UK recognises that this approach would need to be consistent with the integrity of the EU’s customs union and that the EU would need to be confident that goods cannot enter its customs territory without the correct tariff and trade policy being applied. To that end, the UK proposed that where a good reached the UK border and the destination could not be robustly demonstrated at the point of import, it would pay the higher of the UK or EU tariff. Where the goods destination was later identified to be in the lower tariff jurisdiction, it would be eligible for a repayment from the UK Government equal to the difference between the two tariffs. The UK proposed agreeing with the EU a new trusted trader scheme to allow firms to pay the correct tariff at the UK border without needing to engage with the repayment mechanism. Both sides would need to agree the circumstances in which repayments could be granted, which is most likely to be relevant to intermediate goods. The UK also proposed agreeing a mechanism with the EU for the remittance of relevant tariff revenue, such as a tariff revenue formula, taking account of goods destined for the UK entering via the EU and goods destined for the EU entering via the UK.
To ensure that new declarations and border checks between the UK and the EU do not need to be introduced for VAT and excise purposes, the UK also proposed the application of common cross-border processes and procedures for VAT and excise, as well as some administrative co-operation and information exchange to underpin risk-based enforcement. These common processes and procedures would apply to the trade in goods, small parcels and to individuals travelling with goods (including alcohol and tobacco) for personal use.
The UK’s proposal is designed to make the arrangements as simple as possible for those who need to use them, and the UK would continue to explore options to use future advancements in technology to streamline the process.
As the Prime Minister set out in her update to the House of Commons on 22 October 2018, Official Report, column 46, we have made good progress in negotiations with the EU on both the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration on our future relationship. On the political declaration on our future relationship, the UK and the EU have discussed each element of the UK’s proposals, including the future customs arrangement. The UK will continue to work with the European Union on finalising the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration on our future relationship and, as set out in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the House of Commons must vote to approve that deal before the withdrawal agreement can be ratified.
[HCWS1031]
General Affairs Council
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
Lord Callanan, Minister of State for Exiting the European Union, has made the following statement:
I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (GAC) meeting on 16 October in Luxembourg. A provisional report of the meeting and the conclusions adopted can be found on the Council of the European Union’s website at:
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2018/10/16/
Preparation of October European Council
The Council discussed the draft conclusions for the European Council meeting on 18 October at which leaders from the 28 EU states discussed migration, internal security and external relations.
Ministers were content with the conclusions text on migration. I stated that the UK viewed the text as being balanced and welcomed the focus on developing operational outcomes. I also welcomed the intention to tackle people-smuggling networks and monitor and disrupt their online communications.
On internal security, I welcomed the references to the attack in Salisbury in March and the attempted cyber-attack carried out against the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in April. I called for the acceleration of work to establish a cyber toolkit capable of responding to malicious cyber-attacks through restrictive measures.
Following Ministers’ discussions, the European Council discussed external relations, including the EU-Africa partnership and the upcoming summit between the 28 EU member states with the League of Arab States on 24 and 25 February 2019.
Rule of law in Poland
The Commission updated the Council on the most recent developments regarding the rule of law in Poland. The Commission called for a further hearing at a future meeting of the Council. In previous discussions on this matter, the UK has intervened to highlight the importance of the rule of law. Consequently, I did not intervene on this occasion.
Respect for EU values in Hungary
The presidency provided the Council with an update on the next procedural steps following the European Parliament’s triggering of the article 7(1) treaty on European Union (TEU) procedure for Hungary. This was the first GAC at which Ministers had considered the article 7(1) TEU process against Hungary and I intervened to reaffirm the value that the UK places on the importance of the rule of law.
Multiannual financial framework
The presidency provided the Council with an assessment of the latest position in the ongoing multiannual financial framework discussions.
[HCWS1036]
Sexual Exploitation in the Aid Sector
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)
Following my oral statement of 20 February and my written ministerial statements of 20 March and 17 May, I am updating the House on the outcomes of the international summit that I hosted in London on 18 October, Putting People First: Tackling Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Sexual Harassment in the Aid Sector.
The aims of the summit
Last week’s summit followed the event on 5 March which I co-hosted with the Charity Commission and where I announced new, enhanced safeguarding standards for the organisations DFID works with. The 18 October summit was attended by over 500 participants and focused on driving up the safeguarding standards of organisations worldwide who work in the international aid sector.
Aid must be delivered in a way which does no harm. If not, we will have failed in our duty to protect the most vulnerable. We must deter wrongdoing and hold perpetrators to account. This includes enabling prosecutions by law enforcement agencies if justified.
This work is driven by four things: our determination to prevent incidents of sexual exploitation, sexual abuse and sexual harassment from happening in the aid sector in the first place; to listen to those who are affected when it does occur; to respond robustly but sensitively; and to learn from every case.
The summit helped provide a focus for the work driven by the UK since February. Our major partners were asked to attend the summit with concrete practical actions which will bring about significant changes. I am pleased that many of them rose to the challenge.
Donors (representing over 90% of global official development assistance in 2017), the United Nations, international financial institutions, CDC (the UK’s development finance institution) and representatives of around 500 major British NGOs, contractors and research organisations each presented commitments. In total, there were eight separate sets of collective commitments.
Each document stated what that group of organisations will do to achieve four long-term fundamental changes—or strategic shifts—to fundamentally rewrite the way the aid sector operates, from root to branch:
Ensure support for survivors, victims and whistleblowers; enhance accountability and transparency; strengthen reporting; and tackle impunity;
Incentivise cultural change through strong leadership, organisational accountability and better human resource processes;
Adopt global standards and ensure they are met or exceeded; and
Strengthen organisational capacity and capability across the international aid sector to meet these standards.
Specific initiatives unveiled at the summit
Measures announced to help deliver the four shifts included:
a new international vetting scheme for aid workers led by Interpol, to be piloted over five years with DFID funding, to deter abusers from entering the sector and to identify and arrest them quickly if they do;
UK NGOs with support from DFID will test a “passport” for aid workers to prove an individual’s identity, provide background information on their previous employment and vetting status;
a new disclosure of misconduct scheme across the NGO sector to prevent known perpetrators moving around undetected—organisations with over 50,000 staff have already signed up, and I expect the coverage to increase significantly in the months ahead;
agreement among 22 major donors on common global safeguarding standards which organisations must meet if they want to receive funding from those donors;
a resource and support hub funded by DFID to help smaller organisations understand and meet those standards, including access to specialist investigators;
all donors and other participants committed to have at least one named senior level champion accountable for work on safeguarding issues and to encourage annual discussions of safeguarding at board level as well as the recruitment and career development of women throughout organisations;
DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will support the development of a United Nations statement of victims’ rights to allow people to understand their rights, and to have confidence that they can find help if those rights are threatened or violated; and
the Disasters Emergency Committee to test shared reporting hotlines for raising concerns in future emergencies, along with a review of how they respond to community feedback.
Next steps to ensure delivery
The measures agreed will help to deliver root-and-branch change in the way the aid sector approaches safeguarding issues. They send a powerful message to any individuals who might look to exploit power imbalances and the vulnerability of those who the aid sector is there to help. They also send a powerful message that survivors and victims’ voices must be heard.
In the interests of transparency and accountability the sets of commitments made by the UK with 21 other donors, and those made by our major domestic and international partners can be found at: https://www.gov. uk/government/topical-events/safeguarding-summit-2018. A fuller outcome summary is available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safeguarding-summit-2018-hosts-outcome-summary along with other key documents from the day. My Department will continue to report on progress via its annual report to Parliament.
This remains a long-term agenda requiring leadership and culture change. That is why donors agreed to meet no later than October 2019 to assess progress on their commitments, while continuing to liaise regularly to keep up the pace of progress and share lessons. Donors also agreed to support the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) to formulate a new DAC instrument that in 2019 will set standards on preventing and managing the risks of sexual exploitation and abuse in development co-operation, and drive donor accountability in meeting them. The 12 commitments to change in the UK NGO document presented to the summit will become part of the Bond Charter, which forms the common vision, purpose, values and principles of the Bond network covering more than 420 international development and humanitarian organisations. Other commitment documents include similar tools for tracking progress.
The summit galvanised the whole sector and provided a framework which was previously lacking to drive further progress. I will continue to ensure this issue remains a focus across the international system as there is still much work to do. But the summit was a key moment to say “No more” and to deliver some of the practical tools to give the people that the aid sector is here to help the protection that they need.
[HCWS1033]
Trade Envoys to Tanzania and Kenya
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
The Prime Minister has approved two new appointments to the trade envoy programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Kenya and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Tanzania. These new appointments take the total number to 33 parliamentarians covering 63 markets. The Prime Minister’s trade envoy programme is an unpaid and voluntary cross-party network, which supports the UK’s ambitious trade and investment agenda in global markets.
[HCWS1030]
World Trade Organisation Update
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
I am pleased to announce to the House that following the circulation of our goods schedule at the World Trade Organisation in Geneva, the period for certification has ended. As expected, some trading partners have expressed reservations about our proposed treatment of tariff rate quotas (TRQs). I am therefore announcing today that the UK intends to enter negotiations with relevant partners under article XXVIII of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The notification to formally invite claims in that process is now being prepared. Through the article XXVIII process the aim is to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion that maintains the balance of rights and obligations for the UK and our trading partners.
[HCWS1034]
Justice Programme: Opt-in Decision
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
The Government have decided not to opt in to a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council establishing a justice programme.
The justice programme aims to support judicial co-operation in civil and criminal matters, promote judicial training and facilitate access to justice. It forms part of the justice, rights and values fund within the proposals for the EU’s new multiannual financial framework, the EU’s budget for the period 2021-27. The proposal has a justice and home affairs legal base, and so the UK must take an opt-in decision under title V of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union.
Given that the justice programme will run from January 2021 to December 2027, the UK will have left the EU and come to the end of any anticipated implementation period (which would conclude in December 2020) before the programme comes into effect. The European Commission has therefore drafted the regulation establishing the programme on the basis that the UK will not be able to participate as an EU member state, as it will no longer be part of the European Union. Opting in to the proposal would not automatically allow us to participate in the justice programme when it comes into effect, but it would allow the UK to have a vote on the proposals until March 2019 and potentially influence its development. If we wanted to join the programme after leaving the EU, we would need to negotiate with the European Commission to do so as a third country.
The UK did not opt in to the existing justice programme running from 2014-20. It was considered that the benefits to the UK from the programme (in terms of receiving funding for UK organisations to carry out activities under the programme) did not outweigh its costs to the Government.
Given these reasons, the Government have concluded that it is not in the national interest to opt in to the justice programme.
[HCWS1037]
House of Lords
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Public Sector Television Content
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that public sector television content is easily discoverable regardless of how viewers access such content.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the value and importance of high-quality public service content and the need for it to be widely accessible to viewers. That is why, in the Digital Economy Act 2017, the Government required Ofcom to publish a report looking at the ease of finding PSB content across all platforms. Ofcom published its first report on the discoverability of PSB content in July and has consulted on proposed changes to the linear EPG code and the future of the prominence regime. The consultation closed on 5 October. We look forward to its findings in due course.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. Given Ofcom’s clear support for a legislative update, does the Minister not agree that there is an urgent need to modernise the rules that help to guarantee prominence for PSB linear and associated on-demand services? Global technology players should not be the gatekeepers to what we watch. They have little interest in supporting UK content and culture or ensuring that the news they supply access to is accurate. Unless the Government act, they will bury public service TV.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I pretty much agree with that. The Secretary of State said last month that,
“the government will support PSBs to ensure they continue to thrive, and stay prominent, as part of a healthy, sustainable and dynamic media landscape”.
If Ofcom, which is the expert on this, makes it clear that there is a problem that needs fixing by legislation, we will look to bring that forward.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I have the same quote from September 2018 in front of me, and I am delighted to hear that the Government are aware of the urgency of this. Three months before that report, Ofcom indicated that legislation would be necessary to achieve the objectives we have all agreed about. Post Brexit, where will such legislation figure in the queue of legislation ganging up on us, in order to do justice to the sense of urgency that has already been accepted?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I would like to say that it will have prominence, but obviously I cannot give a guarantee today. Brexit will involve a lot of legislation. The fact is, we understand the urgency, that the media landscape is changing and how technology is changing. The old linear EPG is not fit for purpose. It is not for me to say where it will fit in the legislative programme because that is not my responsibility, but we understand the issues. We are waiting for the Ofcom report following its consultation, which has now finished; I believe it is due early in 2019.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance to the tens of thousands of Welsh speakers living in England that the Welsh language channel S4C will be afforded reasonable prominence on the electronic programme guide?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That is likely to be the case, but we are obviously waiting for Ofcom’s report. However, I understand the point, and I think it will have suitable prominence.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I refer to the register of interests. Is the Minster aware that the concerns reflected in the noble Baroness’s Question are shared by many on these Benches as well? Can he send a strong message to Ofcom about the need for speed, given the pace of technological change, which is overtaking us every day? When does he think the Government will be able to announce concrete progress on this road?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I have outlined that things are moving fast. The consultation finishes on 5 October. Ofcom has said it will report at the beginning of 2019. Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, alluded to, it is up to the business managers—if Ofcom decides that legislation is necessary; you will have to look at the report. This is a complex area. The new technologies do not make it simple. It is not just like an old, linear EPG. But we understand the urgency and we know that the commercial interests do make it difficult for public service broadcasters. The key is that we support public service broadcasting.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, we have heard from my noble friend and other noble Lords about the urgent need to change the EPG regulations, but is there not another aspect? The chief executive of Channel 4 has pointed out that there is no regulation at all of so-called smart voice search controls, which are increasingly being introduced by the major television manufacturers. That aspect is barely covered by the Ofcom report. Will the Minister guarantee that it will be covered in any new regulations?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I accept, as I said before, that this is a complex area. We are talking about not only linear, satellite and aggregators, but about TV and videos which are just on the internet. As noble Lords will know, as well as looking at the prominence regime, we are looking at online harms generally. We expect to publish a White Paper on that in the winter.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Should any further evidence be required, was not the powerful support for and huge importance of the five main channels demonstrated by the colossal viewing figures during the World Cup? Some 26.5 million people, 40% of the population, were watching this listed event. It is a long time since the last review. Is it not time for another review of the listed events, which have been steadily eroded over recent decades, because they are hugely important to and popular in the country as a whole, and very unifying, in that people talk about them?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I completely agree about the unifying aspect of these events, and it is worth bearing in mind what the noble Lord has said. We should not be under the illusion that the PSB viewing figures are unimportant. Together, the PSBs command a 55% share of all TV viewing, and they spend £2.6 billion a year on original UK content.
Border Force: Heathrow Airport
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blunkett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how often the Border Force failed to achieve service level agreement targets for the maximum waiting time for passengers at Heathrow Airport during the months of (1) July, (2) August, and (3) September; what was the percentage shortfall in each case; and what action they intend to take to improve its performance.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw attention to a tangential interest on the register.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, Border Force is committed to ensuring that passengers arriving in the UK receive an excellent service, while it maintains our responsibility to border security of checking 100% of passports. The latest statistics available are for quarter 2 of 2018, when 95% of passengers were cleared within service standards. Border Force is taking a number of steps to ensure that passengers are dealt with quickly, including through investing in technology and maximising available staff during busy times.
Lord Blunkett
My Lords, I had intended to congratulate the Minister, first, on the delphic way in which she responded to my previous Question without giving me an Answer—she has managed to do that again today—and, secondly, on the fact that there was an improvement in August although then a catastrophic drop in September. Given the National Audit Office report this week and the genuine concerns about retaliation post Brexit, never mind about the impact on our commerce and trading as well as our relations across the world, is it not time that the Home Office got a grip on this and ensured that we used real intelligence to pass people through passport control in less than two and a half hours?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the fact that the noble Lord did not congratulate me is no disappointment, because it is rare that anyone congratulates me on anything.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is the Home Office after all.
The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that, given the passenger growth that we have seen during the past couple of years, we need to be ready to process people through the border. He will know that we had a surge in staff during the summer—200 staff equipped for the summer months—which is probably where the positive part of his question comes from. On the back of the growth that we are seeing, we will have to look at options for extending some eligibility through e-gates. We are actively exploring how we might achieve that in the shortest possible timeframe.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
As my noble friend knows, I have raised this matter with her previously; I think that she was going to write to me about it, but I have not yet received the letter. Given the worsening situation in some areas, could we not at least consider the kind of business fast-track visa that enables business card holders to zip around the whole Asian economic scene with great speed? They should be just as free to move around the areas which are of major concern to us commercially.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I apologise to my noble friend for his not having received a reply. He previously talked about Japanese businessmen, if I recall correctly. There is of course the registered traveller service, by means of which passengers, particularly business passengers, can be expedited through the border. I will ensure that the letter that should have been sent to him is sent as soon as possible.
The Duke of Somerset (CB)
My Lords, why are so many of the electronic gates often closed? Does she agree that the installation of more of them in good working order would go a long way to alleviating the queues?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The opening of e-gates is designed specifically to ensure that predicted passenger numbers coming through are served by them. If flights are delayed, for example, that can mean that e-gates do not operate at full efficiency. On the back of the Question, it is important to look at the wider issue, which is to make sure that e-gates are available at those busy times and can operate at full efficiency.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, the figure that the Minister gave of 95%, I think, covers all terminals at Heathrow and the whole day. The biggest problem of delay is at terminals 4 and 5 during the peak summer months and at specific periods of the day. The figure then is nothing like 95%. Can the Government now give us relevant figures on the percentage of non-EEA passengers arriving at Heathrow terminals 4 and 5 in the peak summer months during the periods when those terminals are at their busiest who experience delays exceeding the service level agreement, which I think is the information that my noble friend Lord Blunkett would like?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The reason I have not given the noble Lord those figures is because I cannot give them. We are certainly looking through the aviation strategy to provide improvements and looking at the service level agreements that we have made.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, those entering the UK from outside the EU and the EEA are stopped at the border to check that they are not moving here permanently and that they are not going to work here illegally, hence the queues. What plans have the Government put in place, if we leave the EU, to ensure that EU citizens are not moving here permanently or moving here to work illegally, bearing in mind that the Government have promised that there will be no border between the EU and the UK on the island of Ireland?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that, when passengers come into this country, Border Force ensures that this country maintains its safety and security for all. The arguments around the CTA are well trodden, with the Government not wanting a hard border between Ireland and the UK. Of course, the CTA existed before the EU itself, and will do after we leave.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend on her impeccable good humour whenever she is answering Questions, may I ask whether we are likely to have a backstop or a stop-back arrangement for EU immigrants from 29 March next year?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend for that congratulation: it is probably the first I have ever had. All I can say at this point is that, as he knows, negotiations are ongoing and this will be determined in due course.
Trident
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will reassess their plans in relation to Trident in the light of the report by the British American Security Information Council, Blowing up the Budget: the cost risk of Trident to UK defence, published on 25 September.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government remain committed to maintaining a minimum credible nuclear deterrent and continuing with the programme for our new ballistic missile submarines. The first responsibility of government is the protection and defence of the United Kingdom and its citizens. Economic pressure is not sufficient rationale for taking long-term risks with our national security far into the future. Like any organisation, the Ministry of Defence assigns funds to those activities which are the highest priority.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure he is as worried as many of his colleagues by the Public Accounts Committee report which found that the nuclear deterrent is an enterprise that is already unaffordable. If this spend were making the UK, Europe and the world safer, it might be worthwhile—but it is quite clear that halting a renewed nuclear arms race, binding treaties and multilateral disarmament are the only ways to achieve that safer world. Given that the UK boycotted the UN talks and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, can the Minister tell the House just how the Government intend to set an example, as a nuclear weapon state, in making a success of the forthcoming round of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and what steps they have already taken to ensure that positive progress towards disarmament will be achieved?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the unpredictable security environment we face today demands, in the very firm view of the Government, the maintenance of our nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future. However, the Government are committed to a world without nuclear weapons, and we firmly believe that the best way to achieve that goal is through gradual, multilateral disarmament, negotiated using a step-by-step approach within the framework of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We have tried over the years to lead by example. Our nuclear warhead stock has been much reduced, as the noble Baroness is aware, and we will do our best to discuss and negotiate, with our partners, the best way to proceed from this point.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the credibility of the nuclear deterrent is very much dependent on a strong conventional capability? Are the Government satisfied that the conventional capability today is adequate?
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right. In the world environment we are in, it would be madness for us to give up our absolute minimum nuclear deterrent. We have set an example to everyone in the world. While I am delighted that £1 billion has been brought forward to speed up the programme, and that it came from central funds and not from MoD funds, in the context of modernising defence could we go back to what Labour had planned: namely, that the capital costs of nuclear submarines would come from the centre and not from defence funds, with the implications that has for the defence vote?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we think we can achieve the same objective under the current arrangements because, in addition to the £31 billion estimated capital cost of the programme, the Treasury has allocated a potential contingency of £10 billion on top of that. We think that it is prudent and have no reason to believe that we will use it to the fullest extent, but it gives an assurance that, over the 30-year timescale of this programme, sufficient flexibility should be built in.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, the BASIC report suggests in two or three places that the Government’s commitment to the continuous at-sea deterrent may no longer have the same priority that it did. Will the Minister acknowledge the remarkable achievement of nearly 50 years of unbroken continuous at-sea deterrence, which is ongoing, and repeat to the House his unequivocal assurance that CASD will still have the Government’s highest priority?
Earl Howe
I am happy to confirm to the noble and gallant Lord that that is the Government’s policy. We reaffirmed the continuous at-sea deterrent posture in the 2015 strategic defence and security review and, as he rightly says, we have had a nuclear armed submarine on patrol for every minute of every day for nearly 50 years, including during the transition between the Resolution and Vanguard classes.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I would never publicly question the utility to our defence of the nuclear deterrent, nor the carrier programme, nor the F-35 programme. But it is eminently clear to me that for several years now, the balance of the conventional forces has been used as the financial regulator in order to afford these programmes. Does the noble Earl not agree that, unless the whole of the defence programme is made affordable, we will be presented with decisions that so hollow out our conventional forces that the sense of affording the nuclear deterrent will be seriously questioned?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I understand the noble and gallant Lord’s point. There is a £31 billion budget for the Dreadnought programme and we are currently confident that that estimate is robust. It is quite separate and distinct from other procurement budgets. We do not consider that it impacts upon them adversely—but we are conscious of the risks that he articulates.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the BASIC report says that the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which rates government projects,
“has rated Dreadnought Amber/Red, meaning that the IPA assesses that: ‘Successful delivery of the project is in doubt, with major risks or issues apparent in a number of key areas’”.
It goes on to say:
“Worse, the linked Core Production programme, which will produce a new submarine reactor core production facility … is the … only Red rated project”,
in the Ministry of Defence. Given this sorry state of affairs, what faith can we have in anything the MoD says about these programmes?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the amber/red rating for the Dreadnought programme in 2016-17 recognised that the programme was unaffordable at that time against the required profile, and that there were significant risks in the design-to-build transition. Since 2016-17, funding has been approved for the second delivery phase, the design has matured and governance has improved. The red rating for the core production capability reflects scope changes and associated delays and cost increases. We have to recognise that this is a very complex programme—probably the most complex engineering programme that any Government have undertaken—hence the caution in those risk ratings.
Antimicrobial Resistance
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce deaths from antimicrobial-resistant infections.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, antimicrobial resistance, or AMR, is a significant global threat and the Government are committed to tackling it domestically and internationally. Over the past five years, we have worked to deliver our strategy and ambitions as set out in response to my noble friend Lord O’Neill’s review. However, we recognise that no country can tackle AMR in a single five-year strategy. That is why we will shortly be setting out our longer-term vision for tackling AMR and setting challenging ambitions for the next five years.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. As he rightly said, AMR poses a grave threat to health. Quite simply, if action is not taken to address this growing threat, it is estimated that, by 2050, AMR will kill 10 million people a year, more than cancer and diabetes combined. This week we saw the publication of the Commons Health Select Committee report which outlined the gravity of this issue. It is of concern that the Chief Medical Officer said to that committee that she would like,
“more visible and active Government leadership”,
on AMR. I think I need to press the Minister. When we will see more visible activity and what form will it take to deal with a huge threat to our nation’s health?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I agree with the noble Baroness about the grave long-term threat AMR poses, but it also poses a threat in the short term. Estimates vary, but between 2,500 and 5,000 people a year in England die because of AMR. In relation to the seriousness with which the UK takes it, I mentioned the new strategy which will be published shortly. I should point out two things that have been a success. First, the UK has taken a very important global leadership role in making AMR a priority for the G20. Secondly, as a consequence of our action plan, we have seen reductions in the prescribing of antibiotics at GP level. That means that we are starting to drill down on the overprescribing and inappropriate prescribing which is driving AMR.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, is it correct that last-resort antibiotics are being fed to pigs in order that they can be weaned at an earlier stage?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I do not know specifically about pigs, although in my briefing there was a quote from Pig World, which is not a periodical I read very often. Antibiotic use in the veterinary environment has gone down by 40%. It is one of the big successes of the strategy.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, today the European Parliament is voting to ban all prophylactic use of antibiotics in farming, which will mean that they can no longer routinely be fed to groups. While British farmers have done magnificently in reducing antibiotics, I gather that the UK’s Veterinary Medicine Directorate is not minded to adopt this ban. Can I have an assurance from the Government that, in any new legislation now and post Brexit, a total ban on prophylactic use will be installed and that food standards will be maintained so that, if we ever start taking American meat imports, we will not accept them because of their unacceptable use of antibiotics?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I join the noble Baroness in congratulating farmers on fantastic action in reducing the use of antibiotics. The specific issue the noble Baroness asked about is in the competence of Defra, so I will have to speak to my colleagues in that department about their opinion on the prophylactic use of antibiotics. On food standards, we have some of the highest food standards and animal welfare standards in the world, as the noble Baroness knows, and we have no intention of lowering them in any trade deal.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister referred earlier to overprescribing. Will he tell the House what is being done to protect the future of scientific research in this area, particularly post Brexit? Although changing the behaviour of GPs and patients is important, long-term certainty will come from research which is yet to be completed.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness is quite right. A key part of the strategy to date has been a £350 million investment in R&D specifically on AMR. On what will happen after Brexit, as she will know, our intention, as set out in the White Paper, is to be part of the successor programme to Horizon 2020, which you do not need to belong to the EU to be part of.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, in 2016 just under 250,000 people developed multidrug-resistant TB globally, and in 2015 a report found that one-third of London boroughs exceeded the World Health Organization’s high-incidence threshold for TB. This poses a huge threat to public health. What action is being taken to get on top of this by the Department of Health, Public Health England and other agencies?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness is quite right about the risk in London. We actually have a good TB story in this country—a 41% reduction between 2011 and 2016—but London has the highest rates in the UK. I can tell her that Public Health England and the GLA are working closely together to reduce TB. In fact there are innovative new approaches, such as UCLH’s Find & Treat mobile unit, which I myself visited last year, which is going out and finding people at the highest risk, screening them and then taking them for treatment.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, accepting that the overprescribing or inappropriate prescribing of any drug is a bad idea, the issue of bacterial infections will remain with us. I hope the new strategy that the Minister mentioned will address the issue of how we might tackle bacterial infections in future. This could be by developing new antibiotics; developing drugs that deal with infections but do not produce resistance; developing therapies such as boosting the immune response to be able to cope with these infections; and even, if I may say so, developing drugs that might deal with so-called zombie cells that cause infections, which would be more appropriate for older people. I therefore hope his new strategy will address the necessary research.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I can reassure the noble Lord on that front. We have made good progress in dealing with hospital-acquired infections such as MRSA and C. difficile, although unfortunately we have had less success with E. coli. Obviously, a big part of this is driving down infections completely. The other part is about drug discovery, and that is a big global action. It is part of the G20 work that we are taking forward with Argentina to ensure that we have new classes of antibiotics to deal with these problems.
Brexit: Preparedness for EU Exit
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will reassess their level of preparedness for not reaching a negotiated agreement with the EU in the light of the report by the National Audit Office, The UK border: preparedness for EU exit, published on 24 October.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, extensive work to prepare for no deal has been under way for two years. Robust plans are in place to ensure that the border continues to operate from the day that we leave. We will always ensure that we have the necessary resources to keep the border secure. That is why we are recruiting over 600 Border Force officers to prepare for the day that we leave, in addition to the 300 officers who will be deployed by the end of 2018.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, the Prime Minister said no deal is better than a bad deal, but now the NAO says the border and HMRC systems needed under WTO rules simply cannot be implemented in time. Business cannot prepare; the car industry warns about the catastrophic impact that no deal would have on its manufacture; ports would be jammed, even without Mr Grayling’s flotilla; and medicines would be in short supply—to say nothing of the urgent legislation required in this House. Is it not irresponsible, even reckless, to continue to threaten no deal? Having got to the cliff edge and looked over, should the Government not be saying, “Better not”?
Lord Callanan
I am not sure what the noble Baroness is asking us to do here. We do not want no deal, but as a responsible Government, we need to prepare for it. Is the Labour Party saying that it would accept any deal given to it? We want a deal, we are working for a deal, we are negotiating for a deal, but putting in place preparations in case there is no deal is the responsible thing to do. That is what a responsible Government should do.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, does not this damning report from the National Audit Office perfectly make the case for the people to have a people’s vote, to have a final say on what happens next to this country? There is a myth that the Prime Minister stopped talking about no deal being better than a bad deal, but she repeated it just four weeks ago. In the light of that, it is highly irresponsible—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her Question—to be in this state of unpreparedness when the Government say that they are determined, come what may, that we either exit with a deal or have no deal.
Is it true that the Government have been advised that ferries will have to be requisitioned because the capacity at Dover will be 15% to 25% more than normal for six months after no deal? Where will the Government find those ferries? Where will they find the alternative port capacity? What are people who depend on life-saving drugs going to do in the meantime?
Lord Callanan
As the noble Baroness is aware, we have already had the a people’s vote and the people voted to leave, but we will be exploring this subject extensively in the next few hours in response to the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. As I said, we remain confident of reaching an agreement with the EU, but it is only sensible for government and industry to prepare for a range of scenarios. We continue to work closely with a range of partners on the appropriate contingency plans to ensure that trade can continue to move as freely as possible between the UK and Europe in the event of no deal—which, I repeat, is not an outcome that we wish.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
Has my noble friend noted the statement this week by President Macron of France in which he said that although no deal was undesirable, no deal should not be a cause for panic? He specifically said that ferries would operate, trains would continue to run through the tunnel, planes would continue to serve as normal and business would go on.
Lord Callanan
My noble friend makes a very good point. We know that the French National Assembly and the French Government are putting in place preparations for no deal, as are many European countries. That is the responsible thing to do, and I am really not sure why the Opposition think it is such a bad thing to put in place sensible contingency plans.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, the NAO report states that the border systems cannot be ready in time for a no deal. Is the Minister saying that the NAO report is wrong?
Lord Callanan
We are putting in place the responses necessary in case of no deal. We have decided to prioritise safety and security, the flow of people and goods and then compliance activity, including the collection of revenue in the short term. Contingency plans are being prepared with the aim of managing all the potential issues, such as queues of traffic in Kent and continuing supplies of essential goods and medicines.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
Is not the reality that with up to 500 box trailers per hour going through Dover alone—2.5 million last year—port clearance at Dover is now utterly impossible in the event that we proceed? The only answer now is inland or destination clearance. Are we actually ready for that? To avoid fraud, all inland clearance transportation would have to be customs sealed, as under the old TIR system, while travelling to destinations within the United Kingdom. Have the Government thought through the implications of that, because that is what will have to happen if we are to avoid fraud?
Lord Callanan
We are looking at all of the potential implications. We are discussing with partners such as ports and ferry operators all the potential implications of no deal. We continue to negotiate to get a deal—that is what we want—but we are putting in place the appropriate contingency plans, operations and processes in case of no deal, as are other European countries, because that is the responsible thing to do.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, if the NAO’s warnings are correct, is it not crass stupidity for the Government not to contemplate putting back the Article 50 day by enough time to accommodate the necessary provisions if we indeed crash out without a deal?
Lord Callanan
As the noble Lord is aware, that is not a decision that we can make ourselves. We would have to apply for and obtain the consent of the 27 other member states as set out under Article 50, but that is not something that we are going to do or are contemplating—we are leaving the European Union on 29 March next year.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm—since I am sure that, like me, he has in fact read the report, unlike many who are going on newspaper reports of the report—that it is about process and does not forecast any of these chaotic outcomes? It accepts that customs will prioritise flow over compliance, that there will not, therefore, be delays and that there will be no change in risks in its assessment, which the report accepts, and therefore no extra checks.
Lord Callanan
My noble friend makes some good points but I repeat the point that it is the responsible thing to do to make the appropriate contingency plans for an outcome that we do not want but which is possible. If noble Lords opposite think that we should make no preparations at all and just accept whatever deal is given to us by the European Union, then I am afraid that I do not agree.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure if the Minister was present earlier at Question Time when my noble friend Lord Blunkett asked his Question. We cannot cope at the moment at the border. If noble Lords read this report—the Minister is not prepared to say whether he agrees with it—it indicates that we have severe problems facing us next year. Yes, it is prudent and responsible to take the appropriate action, but should we not be advising the British people that their holidays next year could be severely delayed, that there could be major problems at Dover and that people should be thinking well ahead about whether they should proceed? Have the Government had discussions with the insurance industry about the likely costs arising from delays?
Lord Callanan
I did not hear the response to the earlier Question. This Private Notice Question was tabled at relatively short notice and I was busy preparing, so I apologise that I did not hear the earlier Answer. We are having discussions about the potential outcomes with a range of partners, including the insurance industry, port operators and others, and we have published an extensive range of technical notices to inform businesses, people, citizens and others about travel plans in the event of no deal.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the lack of preparedness that the report outlines will inevitably lead to delays and some chaos. That will clearly lead to an increase in cross-border crime, smuggling and other aspects of law-breaking. What are the Government doing to deal with that particular aspect of the risks that we face and what have they done to liaise with the people in the county of Kent, which is going to be turned into a lorry park?
Lord Callanan
We are undertaking extensive preparations, including discussions with local authorities and port operators in Kent. It is not true to say that we have not been making preparations. They have been ongoing for the past two years for the relevant legislation that is required, both primary and secondary, in the event of no deal, plus all the appropriate contingency plans and discussions with the various operators.
Business of the House
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That, in the event of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill having been brought from the Commons, Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 30 October to allow the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park)
My Lords, I advise noble Lords that the Public Bill Office will accept amendments ahead of the Bill’s Second Reading on Tuesday next week from the point at which the Bill is read a first time in this House. We expect First Reading to be after our first debate today. After First Reading, a message will appear on the annunciator.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, the Leader of the House has given an explanation of the procedure, but not of why this is being proposed. It would be to the benefit of the House, and a courtesy, if she could explain why this Bill has to be rushed through.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
This Bill is necessary to allow the Government of Northern Ireland to function effectively in the light of the fact that there is not an Executive, as the noble Lord is aware. We have agreed through the usual channels that the House will take this Bill in a faster timeframe, but we are trying to ensure that noble Lords have the opportunity to debate the issues that they wish, which is why we are allowing amendments to be tabled early. We will obviously let noble Lords know as soon as possible when they can start to table amendments.
Business of the House
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debate on the motion in the name of Lord Campbell of Pittenweem set down for today shall be limited to 3 hours and that in the name of Lord Shipley to 2 hours.
Brexit: People’s Vote
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
That this House takes note of the case for a People’s Vote on the outcome of the negotiations between the United Kingdom Government and the European Union on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I begin by reminding noble Lords of some of the promises that have been made. On 9 April 2016, Mr Michael Gove said:
“The day after we leave we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want”.
On 10 October 2016, Mr David Davis said:
“There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside”.
On 20 July 2017, Mr Liam Fox said:
“The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history”.
There are plenty of other Panglossian examples of how everything was to be,
“the best in the best of all possible worlds”.
But given what has happened since, a rather better literary reference might be,
“Never glad confident morning again”,
because those statements display a facile misunderstanding of the nature of the European Union, its origins and its core values. They proceed on a simplistic assumption: “They need us more than we need them”.
We are now commemorating the end of the First World War. Some of us are already wearing poppies. That war caused terrible loss of life to the United Kingdom. Mainland Europe suffered the same but also the humiliation of invasion and occupation. A short 21 years later there was more death and destruction, more humiliation and even more occupation. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the countries of mainland Europe sought to find another way? The way they chose was to rebuild the nations of the mainland not as rivals but as partners, so they created the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 through the treaty of Paris. Its purpose was to provide the coal, the furnaces and the steel to rebuild their countries. But that success—I will not take noble Lords through every iteration of it—embraced and emboldened further co-operation until finally a single market and customs union was formed. It embodied the four freedoms, of goods, capital, services and labour; it is said that Lady Thatcher was a strong supporter of that proposal.
The creation of the four freedoms was as much about security as about economics. Countries that embrace these freedoms do not go to war with each other—they have too much to lose. These freedoms are an investment in stability; they are political as well as economic. To coin a phrase, “This whole issue is not just about the economy, stupid”. It is because of these foundations that Barnier and Brussels cannot and will not make any concession that undermines these freedoms. To do so would at the same time undermine the very stability that the European Union has been created to continue.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Would the noble Lord like to comment on how this has all worked out for Italy and Greece? The stability that he says has been created seems to be somewhat undermined by the behaviour of the people in both countries.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
In the case of Greece, membership of the European Union brought an end to the dictatorship. In the case of Italy, it allowed that country to embark upon reconstruction of its infrastructure, which might not otherwise have been available. In addition, so far as I know there are not yet many movements in either Greece or Italy to leave the European Union, nor indeed to give up the benefits which it allows.
The quotations to which I referred do not understand the fundamental emotion, if you like, which is to be found in the attitude of Germany. For a long time after 1945, Germany was influenced by a sense of guilt. It is perfectly clear from Mrs Merkel that Germany is now influenced by a strong sense of responsibility to protect the structures which stand in the way of the terrors of death and destruction which were seen in the first half of the 20th century. That has produced this attitude: if you want to leave the European Union, that is your prerogative, but you cannot pick and mix the advantages of membership once you have gone. Allow it once, and others may want to do the same, and there will be a break-up of the structure which has been of such importance to those countries who joined it. In the unlikely event that we left NATO, we would no longer expect to be able to rely on Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty—how could we? The simple fact is that as soon as you are outside the European Union, you become a third party, with which the European Union will be willing to co-operate but not to the prejudice of its core values. That is why I say that the Prime Minister’s continuing optimism to the contrary is misplaced.
None of those who thought it was going to be easy ever understood the central obstacle of the constitutional values of the European Union and its determination to protect them. Nor indeed did anyone anticipate the viciousness of the battle for the soul of the Conservative Party, to a point where some commentators even say that its continued existence is at stake. Now we hear that the Prime Minister may have enjoyed a temporary and no doubt welcome respite following events yesterday evening, but none of that deals with the question of the 5% which she recently told us she still had to achieve. Since we have had Conservatives in government, they must take responsibility, first of all, for the determination to have the referendum and its consequences.
We should consider some of the mistakes made: first, Mr David Cameron’s insistence on calling a referendum rather than toughing it out against UKIP and its fellow travellers in his own party, and then the lacklustre and complacent campaign against leaving, headed up by Mr George Osborne.
Lord Dykes (CB)
I thank the Liberal Democrat group for being unequivocally in favour of our continuing membership of the EU. As the first referendum two years ago was an advisory and quite legitimate giving of an opinion, does the noble Lord agree that it is important that the people should be entitled to a second consideration of this important matter now, after the incredibly bewildering and complex negotiations?
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
I am glad that I have so quickly persuaded the noble Lord.
The second matter that I wish to draw to the House’s attention is the unremitting and, it must be admitted, highly successful campaign against the Liberal Democrats conducted by the Conservatives in the 2015 general election. However, the consequence of that was to remove the need for a further coalition, which could have been David Cameron’s defence—as it was between 2010 and 2015—against Conservative MPs hell-bent on withdrawal. The consequence of that is that the credibility of the Government’s position has been substantially undermined, as indeed it was by the assumption on the part of Mrs May that a general election would produce an increased government majority and strengthen her hand. All those weaken the negotiating strength of the Government, which has been further undermined by the civil war in the Conservative Party, where there is still open and reckless ambition and unrepentant revolt—notwithstanding what may be thought to be the temporary ceasefire of last night.
The Prime Minister—who would have believed it?—has found it embarrassingly necessary to use a threat to the European Union that if she were to be replaced because of a failure to reach an accommodation with the 27 leaders, then negotiations with a successor would be even more difficult. Baroness Thatcher would not have approved.
We do not know what the final package put before Parliament will be, but the chances of it being approved by the Commons melt by the hour, as bitterness and abuse replace loyalty and respect. Who will bet the farm that the Government will get any proposal brought back by the Prime Minister through the House of Commons?
What are those who oppose a second vote afraid of? If they are as confident as some of those quotations have suggested, what is there to be lost, so far as they are concerned? I understand those who take the view that in a parliamentary democracy we should not rely on a referendum, but that door was opened when the decision was taken to hold a referendum as to whether we should stay or leave. Some claim that it would be undemocratic to allow such a vote—that it is a novel and dangerous principle to give the people of the United Kingdom the chance to pass judgment on proposals which are a world away from what they were promised, and which will have an impact for decades to come.
Parliament, on the other hand, is sovereign; it can change its mind, and it frequently does. Sometimes we repeal legislation which has been passed earlier in the same Session. It is argued that the people of the United Kingdom cannot be given the same opportunity: that, once cast, the vote to leave must be implemented, whatever the political, economic or social consequences; that the resulting, inevitable uncertainties must be accepted, whatever the financial cost; and perhaps—I speak as someone who comes from north of the border—that the risk of the break-up of the United Kingdom must be accepted, along with the risk of the destabilisation of the island of Ireland.
In the course of the referendum campaign, no one told the country that a decision to leave would result in the depreciation of the pound, an increase in inflation and a rise in the cost of living. No one told the country that we might have to stockpile medicine and food. No one told the country that the car industry would be beset by uncertainty. Where now is the letter of comfort given to Nissan, to which such great importance was attached? It has since been regarded as insufficient, so far as Nissan is concerned.
The people were assured that the vote to leave would be followed by a trouble-free and successful exit, and that the economy would prosper. What else was meant by the three unwise men to whom I have already referred? More than that, the people were given to believe that their Government would conduct the necessary negotiations in an effective and unified way. In all of these expectations, they have been failed. They have been failed by incoherence and incompetence. The people of Britain have a right to be allowed to pass judgment on any deal forged in such circumstances. They should be given that opportunity. I beg to move.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, who spoke with authority, eloquence and transparent sincerity. None the less, I profoundly disagree with him. There are good reasons to argue against a second referendum—reasons that even remainers ought to think about extremely carefully. I was pleased that the noble Lord did not—except in his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes—use the phrase “people’s referendum”, which seems to me an Orwellian use of language, designed to conceal meaning. He knows as well as I do the arguments against the use of that phrase, and so I shall not weary the House by going on about them. However, it is, frankly, a dishonest use of language to say that this would be a people’s referendum in some sense more democratic than the first.
In addition to other arguments, some practical questions have to be put about a second referendum. First, how long would it take to hold a second referendum? We have no standing law to permit the holding of referendums, so it would require legislation. People who have looked at it think that at best, if we were lucky, it might be a year before we could implement a referendum.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I am sorry, but I have only four minutes. The noble Lord will be able to speak later.
A second issue is: what would the question be? Some say it ought to be on the deal that has been negotiated; some say it ought to be on no deal. Would the choice on the ballot paper be between the existing deal and no deal, or for renegotiation on terms yet to be revealed? If the result was that we had to renegotiate the renegotiation, would we then have a third referendum to validate the second referendum? On what terms would we rejoin the EU—or could there be a fourth referendum to validate the third referendum?
The noble Lord did not really refer to the many assurances that were given in the referendum campaign, by all parties, that we would honour the result. The fundamental impression is that many people simply cannot accept the democratic result of the referendum. This, of course, is in the long tradition of the EU, which has in the past bulldozed through policies for integration, even when public opinion has been cautious or opposed to them. Since the EU was founded, there have been no fewer than 48 referendums held on integration measures and accession. Not once has a referendum been rerun when the vote was in favour of integration, even when it was by a narrower majority than that in the referendum we had. On two separate occasions and on two separate issues, Ireland had to run a referendum again; the Danes had to run another referendum; and the French and the Dutch were not allowed to have the result of their referendums on the constitution accepted.
Some EU spokesmen have been quite open about this. In 2005, Mr Barroso said:
“They must go on voting until they get it right”.
Mr Juncker, again in 2005, before the French referendum, said:
“If it is a Yes, we will say ‘on we go’, and if it’s a No, we will say ‘we continue’”.
Raymond Barre, the former Prime Minister of France, said he could not see why the public should be consulted at all about European integration. It was precisely because of this that many people voted to leave the EU. Tony Blair, who one would have thought could have used his experience and contacts to help the Government, has said that the result of a second referendum would have to be definitive and respected. Big deal—that is what he said last time about the referendum we had.
Some people say that a second referendum would be a healing process. That seems the most improbable argument of all. It would create a permanent division in our politics. People already feel great disillusionment and disdain for our system is widespread. I believe that a second referendum would be a disaster of the first order for democracy. It would undermine the very basis of democracy because it would suggest that a decision by a majority is insufficient to make that decision legitimate.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred to and dismissed people who say it would be undemocratic to have a second referendum. But it was the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, himself—who has, I am sorry to see, left the Chamber; perhaps rather conveniently—who just before the referendum result said:
“When the British people have spoken, you do what they command. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t”.
Well, I believe in democracy.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to set out the key issues for the conduct of the second referendum as I see them. In this, I take a different view on some issues from the UCL report on the subject published on 8 October.
First, we will need to secure an extension of Article 50 for the purposes of conducting such a referendum, probably a three-month extension so that the referendum can be held in May.
Secondly, the existing Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act should be superseded by a dedicated EU referendum Act.
Thirdly, this dedicated referendum Act should set up an independent commission solely for the EU referendum. That commission should regulate impartiality, spending and the conduct of the referendum.
Fourthly, the question to be put to the people should be set out in the dedicated referendum Act. It should probably be a straight choice between the Government’s Brexit deal and staying in the European Union, but obviously that depends on whether there is a deal.
Fifthly, there should be no third, no-deal option, because “no deal” does not exist. None of those who are against Mrs May’s current negotiating position because they think it is too pro-EU in fact wants to leave the EU without a treaty that ensures the continuity of aviation, the ports, the movement of people and goods and so forth. Most of the radical Brexiters, including Boris Johnson, are in favour of a financial settlement with the European Union which involves us honouring debts. It must be a cardinal principle that no proposition is put to the people that is imprecise and/or cannot realistically be implemented.
Sixthly, one campaign should be recognised on each side and both campaigns should be fully responsible. There should be no repeat of 2016 when two leave campaigns existed and there was no clear and robust accountability.
Seventhly, social media should be regulated—both its content and its funding—and all foreign intervention in the campaign should be prohibited.
Eighthly, the franchise should be extended to 16 and 17 year-olds, as in the Scottish referendum.
Ninthly, the referendum should be held in university term, which is why I suggest it should be in May, so that students and young people can vote easily.
Brexit concerns the future of young people pre-eminently and we should encourage and facilitate their engagement to the maximum extent possible.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, to put this debate in context, we need to understand the claims of those who say that further public consultation on Brexit is not needed because the public voted for Brexit, they knew exactly for what they were voting for and it would be undemocratic to revisit the issue. The reality is that the public voted on the principle of leaving: they voted for a blank canvas on to which many different and contradictory hopes and aspirations were painted, and now that the picture is becoming clearer, it is obvious that what the leave campaign promised is simply not on offer. So it is not undemocratic to give people the opportunity to vote on the final deal, including the option to remain. Indeed, many of us know people who want that chance, such as those who saw that insidious, mendacious advert on the leave bus, which suggested that the NHS could be richer by an additional £350 million a week if people voted to leave.
One such person was my friend Jane, who voted to leave because of that advert. She felt she had no choice because her two daughters are doctors and she knew how desperately the NHS needed money. Of course, now it is clear that the NHS will not get any extra money—because of Brexit less money is available, because the economy has slowed down—she bitterly regrets the way that she voted.
That is not the only false claim that the Brexiteers made. There was also the wickedly dishonest argument that we needed to leave the EU to stop 80 million Turks arriving in the UK, and that free from the shackles of the EU, countries around the world would be queuing up to do trade deals with us. But the whole idea of finding new markets is a fantasy. Most countries already have special preferential deals with the EU, including Canada. Japan, Australia and New Zealand are already negotiating one, so Britain will start from a disadvantage once it leaves the EU. The only major country that will or may be interested in a special relationship with Britain is the United States—but crucially, it would be on the United States’ terms, which could result in dilution of our food standards. President Trump has already been very clear that he is more interested in a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the EU rather than the UK, because of the size of its market compared to ours.
But the failure of campaigners for Brexit to understand the complexities of the Irish border has been the single biggest failure of the whole process. As somebody who was born and brought up in Ireland, it just fills me with horror. The level of ignorance shown on this issue by key politicians is almost beyond belief. Arlene Foster’s recent interview in the Daily Telegraph, in which she said that some parts of the Good Friday agreement could be changed in the light of Brexit, and that the agreement was not sacrosanct, was beyond irresponsible.
Just as the outrageous claim by Boris Johnson—
Baroness Doocey
Like the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, I only have four minutes, so you will forgive me if I do not; thank you.
Just as outrageous was Boris Johnson’s comparison of the Irish border to two London boroughs—absolutely extraordinary. The Good Friday agreement, which ended 30 years of sectarian violence, must be protected at all costs. But while the Government and the country are held to ransom by the DUP, too many voices are being ignored, and only a people’s vote on the final deal can ensure that these voices are finally heard.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Gold medal to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, once the fastest man in Europe, for securing a debate on the issue of the hour—and would that we had an hour each to explore it. For those who have but 20 minutes, I commend The Roadmap to a People’s Vote, published a month ago. In the short time I have, I will draw on it to make four quick points. First, why a people’s vote? Because the people want it. Polls in the late summer showed clear backing, 45% to 35%, for a public vote on the outcome. The majority rose to two to one, 50% to 25%, in the event of no deal. These majorities are still rising. The people want to have their say.
Point two: why do they want to have their say? Because nobody voted for the Brexit we seem to be going to get. Fewer than one in five now believe that the Government will get a good deal; over 60% believe they will be worse off; and a larger majority believe the negotiations are going worse than they were led to expect. The quotations from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, were very apposite. The policy was to have our cake and eat it. The people now know that is not possible—it is not working out as they were promised—so it seems right to ask them whether they nevertheless want to go ahead.
Point three: is that feasible? Is there enough time? The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and I think on a previous occasion the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, have said that a referendum would take a year. I do not think so. The UCL Constitution Unit report the other day suggested 22 weeks; the Roadmap suggests it could be even faster. However, I acknowledge that it would be necessary to stop the Article 50 clock and obtain an extension of the two-year negotiating period. This would not be a problem. It is important to distinguish between two scenarios here, thinking about the position of the 27. The 27 might well cavil at the idea of an extension to permit the present UK negotiating team to carry on negotiating in the way they are. The EU has other priorities, and the Lithuanian lady got it right the other day when she said after the European Council that “this is a difficult negotiation; it is difficult to know what they want, because they don’t know what they want”. If it is merely to carry on the process, I am not sure the necessary unanimity for an extension would be available. But I am quite sure that 27 democracies would never prevent our putting the outcome to a democratic decision in May, June or September. For that scenario, an extension could be instantly obtained.
A stronger objection is my point four: that a referendum would be socially divisive. I agree. A second referendum would be. However, it would not be nearly as divisive as Brexit without one. The polls now show a decisive majority wanting a second vote and an admittedly much smaller majority not wanting Brexit. If that persists, to drag the country out while denying it a vote would be bitterly and lastingly divisive. The economic and societal consequences of that for jobs, growth, investment and living standards would hit home over time and hit the poorest the hardest, as Sir John Major pointed out the other day. That is a recipe for deep and lasting resentment. It would not then be the people’s Brexit; it would the politicians’ Brexit, the Government’s Brexit, Parliament’s Brexit. The most democratic course is also the least divisive: Parliament should seek the verdict of the people.
Lord Sugar (CB)
A people’s vote on the outcome of the negotiations of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU sounds like, “I don’t like the outcome of the original vote, so I’d like another bite of the cherry to see whether it can be reversed”. The result in June 2016, albeit by a small margin, was a decision to leave. It is my understanding that there is no turning back on a referendum. It would be a complete farce if you could have another crack of the whip. However, there is a good argument to void that vote, if it can be concluded that the public were totally misled. It is my belief that a large section of the British public were misled in forming their decision to vote to leave.
I have been the chair and major shareholder of public companies. As a board, we were obliged, when sending out a prospectus to shareholders and the public, to have all comments and forecasts made by us scrutinised line by line by auditors and lawyers in a very tough due diligence and verification process. No such process exists for the claims politicians make to convince the public—who, by the way, rely on and trust them—to place their vote. In some cases, misleading shareholders has resulted in prosecution and imprisonment. Applying the public company principle, it would follow that those people who will be responsible for putting this country into five to 10 years of post-Brexit turmoil based on lies—such as Boris Johnson and Michael Gove for the £350 million lie on the red bus—should be imprisoned, or at least prosecuted.
On the eve of the Brexit vote, on 22 June 2016, I was invited by David Cameron to take the lead for the remain camp in “The Great Debate”, which took place on the BBC. To this day, I kick myself for turning it down. At the time, I felt that I was not qualified enough to stand up and discuss the various intricacies of leaving or remaining in the EU. Instead, the London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, took my position. He did the best he possibly could.
Lord Sugar
I am being polite. Having watched the debate, I was fuming that somebody did not ask Boris Johnson to put his hand on his heart, look down the lens and tell the British public that the £350 million was a truthful statement. One thing is for sure: I know that, in my forceful manner, I would have made him admit that he was lying. Who knows, perhaps that could have swung the vote.
Similarly, Gisela Stuart, a German immigrant who took advantage of our joining the EU in 1973 came here in 1974. She has flourished: she has become an MP, a mother of two and, I believe, a grandmother. She is an immigrant who flourished and contributed, yet that night she stood in the leave group criticising immigration by implying that 80 million Turks were about to come running to our country—a total lie. She said, “It’s simply a statement of fact that uncontrolled immigration puts pressure on services”. I would say “Pot, kettle”.
We have no understanding of the negotiations taking place between us and the EU. I hope and believe that a rabbit will be pulled out of the hat shortly. Common sense must prevail that we get at least a trade deal. I am a businessman and I sympathise in a way with the Prime Minister, who is possibly in a frustrating position of knowing how the negotiations are going but not being able to publicly disclose the status. The media, bless them, make up their own stories that everything is going to be a disaster when in fact they do not know what is going on at all. My experience in business when negotiating with another party is that you do not lay all your cards on the table; you have to keep your cards close to your chest. One cannot keep the public at large in touch blow by blow. This would effectively destroy our negotiating power.
I seriously believe that the public were misled. For that reason, I believe the public should be entitled to a vote on the final negotiated terms.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sugar. I very much agree with what he said about the referendum, which has ended up in a Brexit situation. The plain and simple term that we might use is that the public were given a false prospectus. Lie after lie emerged. I am afraid the fact is that, if we have another referendum, we will find a similar situation where the public will be misled. It might, however, be helpful to discover what has happened to the Brexiteers’ bus and plaster on the side of it the cost of withdrawal and the effect that is likely to have on the National Health Service.
I was very fortunate only a short time ago, on 19 July, to initiate a debate in this House on the overall case against referendums. I am anxious not to repeat what I said on that occasion, but I will repeat the essential point that I believe the use of referendums is not democratic. It is sold the whole time as being democratic. The reality is that referendums tend to undermine what we in this country have always meant by democracy—namely, the system of representative parliamentary democracy whereby people are elected to represent their constituents. They are representatives, not delegates. The trouble with the referendum is that, the moment we have a referendum result, we find a situation where Parliament and Members of Parliament are bound by that referendum. They are made to be delegates. That inevitably affects their position and does not enable them to exercise their judgment as they would wish.
I note with interest that the debate we are having is not simply, “Let’s rerun the previous referendum”; it is saying that we should have a referendum on the result of the negotiations. That would again be open to the danger I have just said. The crucial thing is that Parliament should have the chance to have a vote that enables it to decide on the result of the negotiations. That will be a tremendously important task.
I was interested to see the enormous size of the march that took place in favour of the kind of proposition we have before us, but I do not think that there is the slightest doubt that the overwhelming majority of those who took part in it were really, in fact, against Brexit. They hoped that the chance of another referendum would enable them to overturn that result. As I say, that issue is separate from the result of the negotiations, but that is the way they felt. I think very strongly indeed that that would be an inappropriate way to do it.
Finally, I turn to the question of the way the referendum might be cast. The Bill for the last referendum—I took part at length in the debates—could not have been clearer in favour of an advisory referendum. It was not a mandatory referendum, but the moment the result was announced, everyone on the government side treated it as if it were. We hear time and again—indeed, some of us heard again last night—that the referendum was an instruction to Parliament. It was no such thing. We really cannot have a situation where the rights of Members of Parliament to govern this country are undermined by them being given instruction by referendum.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, continued Brexit negotiating crises cannot hide a blindingly obvious outcome facing this country. Even if the Prime Minister were to get absolutely everything she has demanded from the European Union under her Chequers plan—which, as Brussels has made clear, is highly unlikely—she would be abandoning the 80% of the economy in the services sector and lumbering taxpayers with a £50 billion divorce bill.
The difference between what was offered by Brexiteers in the June 2016 referendum and what is achievable has been widening into an unbridgeable gulf. As former Conservative Prime Minister John Major has said,
“no form of Brexit will remotely match up to the promises made by the leave campaign in the referendum: they were vote-gathering fantasies, not serious politics. … those who … persuaded a deceived population to vote to be weaker and poorer … will never be forgotten—nor forgiven”.
How can even those who feel obligated by the referendum result justify backing an outcome that will make their constituents worse off, deepen poverty, trigger unemployment, damage the economy, leave us with much less control and less influence on the global stage, and torpedo the Good Friday peace process in Northern Ireland? How is that better than the deal we already have inside the European Union?
Meanwhile the no deal which dogmatic Brexiteers such as Jacob Rees-Mogg cheerfully trumpet would, the Government themselves report, include a series of disasters: customs barriers and tariffs; new visa and driver green cards; the reintroduction of mobile phone roaming charges; the grounding of flights; bans on British hauliers; the loss of existing trade agreements, via the EU, with 70 third countries; and the collapse of the port of Dover on day one.
Moreover, the Government will only guarantee the replacement of European Union regional development funds up to 2020. These have been critical for areas such as Wales. They were worth fully £9.9 billion paid directly to the Welsh Government between 1999 and 2018, excluding substantial funds paid directly to Welsh businesses, universities, groups and individuals.
The Prime Minister is blackmailing MPs and the country by demanding either her terrible Chequers deal or a no-deal Brexit. When did a British Government last threaten Parliament with such an irresponsible choice?
It seems to me that there are now three possible alternatives to either Chequers or a no-deal Brexit. First, force an election to achieve a new Government with a different mandate, but few think that likely. Secondly, vote for a different Brexit model, such as Norway’s alignment to the single market. But that is vigorously opposed by ardent Brexiteers and would, in any event, still mean queues at Dover and a hard border in Ireland, as it does not include a customs agreement. Thirdly, a people’s vote. Parliament should amend the Chequers proposal as it sees fit then put that to the people, handing back to voters the choice between whatever the proposed terms of Brexit are and staying in the European Union.
We began this saga with a people’s vote in 2016, which decided narrowly to leave. We should end it with a people’s vote to decide whether any deal, or no deal, is really what voters wanted all along, or whether, given the chaos and damage that now beckon, they want to think again and remain within the European Union.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, it is a refrain constantly repeated by Brexiteers and Ministers that, somehow, a new referendum would be undemocratic because it shows contempt for the people’s vote to leave. I wonder whether they have ever thought about what democracy means. It is the essence of democracy that people are allowed to change their mind; dictatorships forbid it. Democracies allow changes of Government, but according to Brexiteers it now seems that we are not allowed to change a referendum verdict. The people’s will is sacrosanct once they have spoken, but then they may not change it even if they want to because the result turns out not to be what they voted for.
But, say Brexiteers, what they voted for was leave and we are leaving. They also voted to leave the customs union, say the Government, and the single market and the jurisdiction of the ECJ—so we are leaving all those. Really? Was that choice on the ballot paper?
As far as I am aware, there was only one, very widely based poll, taken on the eve of the referendum by YouGov, on what people expected from Brexit. There were general replies: “Taking back control, especially of immigration”. But, significantly, all respondents expected no downside from Brexit of any kind but sunny uplands instead. There was nothing about customs unions, the single market or the Irish border. I do not know whether there will be no deal, but I would not bet against it. If there is a deal, it means that the Irish border issue will be fudged or somehow postponed.
Whatever the outcome of the negotiations, if we leave, the country, and especially the most vulnerable, will be poorer according to the Government’s own forecasts. The result will not be what the people voted for, but the so-called democrats in the Government will do their best to stop the people having a realistic choice. A realistic choice would be between the outcome and remain. It is increasingly clear, as the figures cited by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, show, that that is what the people want. In their opposition to the idea of the people having the final say, Brexiteers show what they really mean about respect for the will of the people.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, last Saturday, my younger son and I attended the first demonstration that I have ever taken part in. Its most memorable features were its sheer scale, the sunshine, the placards reading, “Conservatives against Brexit” and “Labour against Brexit”, the patience and good nature of a crowd that was calm, quietly determined if clearly very worried, and the fact that for the vast majority, this demonstration was manifestly not party political. My favourite poster was, I assume, done for the benefit of our ex-Foreign Secretary; it read: “Testiculi ad Brexitam”.
Our dilemma began more than 60 years ago, as the issue of our relationship with our continental European neighbours began to gnaw at our political consciousness and to fragment our changing sense of national identity. It has been a running sore within the Conservative Party and has now manifested itself around the leadership of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. The political paralysis, the manifest lack of leadership and the growing sense of concern that we are going about this in the worst way possible as the clock relentlessly keeps ticking are some of the elements which impelled me to march on Saturday.
Franz Kafka would recognise the dilemma we have gotten ourselves into and he has wise words to guide us forward:
“Start with what is right rather than what is acceptable”.
What I accept, and what I also think is the right interpretation of the 2016 referendum, is that it was argued and voted on predominantly not on party-political grounds. UKIP was a single-issue vanishing meteor; Conservative and Labour were, and remain, deeply split. I suspect that all of us in this House know a great many intelligent, thoughtful and deeply worried MPs from all parties, none of whom is standing on digital soap-boxes and playing to the gallery.
The reason that the last 28 months have been so chaotic, frustrating and unfocused is that Her Majesty’s Government, and in particular our Prime Minister, have decided to try to manage the complex and highly delicate process of extrication from the EU on rigidly party-political lines, a direct and deeply unfortunate repudiation of the non-party-political referendum result. What is politically acceptable and expedient for the ERG is not right; it is manifestly wrong. How dare any narrow political grouping have the intellectual arrogance and narrowmindedness to claim that it alone knows how to interpret and enact the will of the British people.
How do we get out of jail? I think we have to return to what is right. We have to remember and recognise that the will of the British people on the subject of the EU is expressed neither clearly nor helpfully by interpreting it on party-political lines. Since our two largest parties lack the will and the courage to manage their own affairs competently, we should recognise that the non-party-political will of the crowd takes priority. I think we have to go back to them—back to ourselves—and frame the dilemma we face with brutal frankness, minimal spin and maximal content. Many may find this intolerable and unacceptable. In my view, it is the right thing to do.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I recall with embarrassment that some 60 years ago in the final of the Observer debating tournament a judge said that he could not determine from my speech on which side of the motion I had spoken. I shall try to avoid that judgment today, although I accept that these are very difficult questions. The genesis, of course, was set out very clearly: it was a Prime Minister—incredibly because until that time he had blown on the flames of UKIP—who was seeking party unity and chose to have a referendum to end the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, set out the problems of referendums: what do they decide? I think it was President Mitterrand who said that in referendums in France the French people always give the answer to the wrong question. There may be some element of that on this occasion. The case against was put very powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, repeating much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hague, said in his article in the Telegraph on 1 October: namely, that there may be no majority for any other option; that it would take a long time; that it was unclear what question should be put; that there would be anger among some at a perceived betrayal of the people’s verdict; and that it would not end the debate.
Having lived through the European debate for a very long time, since I joined the Foreign Office in 1960, I can see that the spectre of Europe has haunted our politics for a long time and will probably continue to do so. However, I believe that other considerations will trump—if that is a word one is allowed to use nowadays—the points made so well by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. In the referendum, we are told that the people spoke—but nobody is quite sure what the people said. Since they did not speak clearly, what did they say? Did they favour the sort of outcome that Norway has, where effectively there would be no immigration controls and decisions would be made over which we have no control? Canada is another option: there are clearly many alternatives.
We are assured by the Government that the deal is now 95% certain. Well, even if that extra 5% were concluded, there would clearly be a case for a choice to be made clear between any deal, if one were to be agreed, no deal and the status quo.
One thing which I have been convinced of by sitting on one of this House’s EU sub-committees is that the experts in the various areas we have tackled, be it in consumer protection or dispute resolution, or be it now in intellectual property, are all convinced that any alternative is worse than the status quo. That has become clear to me and, I hope, to most of those on the committee. I believe firmly that, if we are confident that this decision is very detrimental to the national interest, we should seize any opportunity to reverse it. What are we otherwise to do? Are we to fold our arms, seeing that which is looming, and say, “We can do nothing about it—let it inexorably move on into the cul-de-sac”?
Finally, some noble Lords may recall from their schooldays that in classic Greek tragedy, when an impasse was reached they would have a god from a machine: a machine would be pulled on to the stage and an answer would be found from the deus ex machina. It may well be that this second referendum, which is in our national interest, is that god from the machine.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, it is already abundantly clear that Brexit will harm Britain’s economy and diminish our standing in the world. That is true even if the Prime Minister secures something like her Chequers plan. For all the professionalism of the Civil Service—I pay tribute to Sir Jeremy Heywood, who sadly had to announce his resignation as Cabinet Secretary yesterday, and to Olly Robbins, who has been disgracefully attacked in parts of the press—all it has been able to achieve in this chaotic period of negotiations, given all the splits in the Cabinet and the difficulty of coming to any kind of consensus, is a withdrawal agreement and the sketchiest possible outline of what might follow later. That is so far from what people were promised in the referendum that it is entirely reasonable that they should be asked whether that is indeed what they are now prepared to accept.
Given the state of our politics, it is entirely possible that even that outcome will not be achieved: either the Prime Minister will come back to the House of Commons without a deal, or she will come back with a deal that will then be rejected by that House. No deal would be catastrophic for this country. We are completely unprepared. No one voted for a situation where the Government have to charter ferries to bring in essential supplies, as if the UK were subject to some sort of UN sanctions. It will be a humiliating breakdown of our parliamentary system if the Commons votes down a deal brought back by the Prime Minister but does not then accept a general election to follow it.
In those circumstances, there is only one democratic option: to put the issue back to the people. It would be more democratic than the 2016 referendum because people have a real choice between an outcome—whatever it is—and retaining our membership of the European Union. It would be in the interests of leavers as well as remainers to secure a popular mandate for a decision of that gravity for the future of the country, for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others have given. If it was legitimate for the Prime Minister to call an election less than two years after the previous one, surely it is entirely justifiable to have a referendum on the outcome of a negotiation more than two years after a referendum, on the prospectus described by the noble Lord, Lord Sugar. I agree that the EU would grant an extension in those circumstances. It is not in the interests of any EU country to see a chaotic Brexit, given the many other issues the EU is having to cope with in this dangerous and turbulent world.
It is true that hundreds of thousands of young people will have come on to the voting register since 2016. Is that a problem? No, it is profoundly just to give them a vote. Their lives, and those of our grandchildren, will be affected far more deeply by what we decide in the coming months than the lives of any of us sitting in this Chamber today.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by quoting one of the greater Prime Ministers of this country, Clement Attlee. In the late 1940s, the UK drew up the constitution of what became the Federal Republic of Germany. Attlee had to decide whether there should be provision for referenda in the constitution of the federal republic. His reaction was that referenda are the tools of despots, demagogues and dictators and in no way should they be allowed into any constitution, let alone that of Germany.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is no longer in his place because about a week before the referendum, I was debating it with Sir Bernard Jenkin in East Anglia. At that time, it looked fairly certain that the yes side was going to win. A questioner in the audience asked the panel, “If your side loses the referendum, will you accept the result?” Bernard Jenkin very clearly indicated that he would not. He said, “I’ve been campaigning for this for many years, so of course I would not accept the result. This is what I believe in, and this is what I believe the British people should do”. Always being honest, when the same question was put to me, I said exactly the reverse, but the same thing. I said, “No. I strongly believe in Europe. I don’t think we will lose the referendum—those are historic last words—but if we do, I will carry on campaigning for us to remain in the European Union”.
The first thing we should do is to strip away all this nonsense. Many of us who campaigned to remain want to use this opportunity to remain. Of course, a lot of rubbishy things were said. You should never put anything to a referendum. If you remember, de Gaulle lost a referendum on regional government, which forced him to resign because the people of France were not voting about regional government in France but were thinking, “We’ve had enough of this man de Gaulle. He’s been around for 10 years”. Once Charles de Gaulle said, “I will resign if the referendum goes against me”, he lost.
Having said that, I am prepared to argue for a confirming vote on this momentous decision. We have votes regularly in this country. It seems to me not unreasonable. Things have changed. I note that when the Scottish nationalists lost the referendum in Scotland, they immediately said that they were going to campaign for another one. They keep on campaigning. Incidentally, I seem to remember that there is a provision in the Ireland settlement for a referendum on a united Ireland. Maybe that is the way out of the hard border. Maybe we should ask them if they would like a referendum on it, just for Ireland.
The one thing I would counsel everybody against is believing that the result would be different. I think it is highly likely that the British people will say, “Sod those politicians. They’re trying to make us reverse our decision, and we’re not going to”. While I am very much in favour of another vote, I am in no way sanguine about the outcome.
Finally, the disaster of the referendum was that it was all based on fear, and all we are doing now is frightening people: “You’ll have no medicine”; “Your food will stop”; “You won’t be able to fly”. Europe has to be about hope. It has to be about the future. It has to be about those sunny uplands. It cannot be about terror, fear and dreadful things happening. Yes, let us have another referendum, but for goodness’ sake, let us stop campaigning all the time on fear and campaign on our moral duty and the future of Europe, of which we are a part and of which we should be proud.
Baroness McDonagh (Lab)
My Lords, “just in case” is enshrined in our culture, our legal system and our character. In home ownership, we put in an offer before we have a survey done and proceed to buy. In pay negotiations, we instruct trade union officials and then get a vote on the final deal. In consumer rights, we buy and then we have a cooling-off period. Tenancy rights are being scrutinised in this House now, and we are talking about allowing prospective tenants to have their deposits back should the tenancy not go ahead. When it comes to marriage, many get engaged and have their banns read before their wedding. In divorce, the decree nisi comes before the decree absolute. These are six straightforward examples to show that the British way of life is underpinned by “just in case”—that is, making a first decision and then having final approval when all the facts are known. There is nothing to fear from making a decision between whether to remain and the final deal now that all the facts are known—just in case.
In my belief, “just in case” is a better strategy than that adopted by the current and the previous Prime Minister, which I describe as a strategy of “making no decision at all and kicking the can down the road”. Rather than sort out the infighting in the Conservative Party over Europe, the former Prime Minister David Cameron adopted the “kick the can down the road” strategy and it ended in disaster. The current Prime Minister is on the brink of doing the same now. We now know that the most likely deal is not a final deal at all but a temporary one under which we will have a customs union for three to four years. It is another “kick the can down the road” strategy. It will allow Conservative leavers to believe that they can get fully out, it will allow Conservative remainers to believe that they can get further in, and everyone gets home for Christmas in the mistaken belief that it will all go away—but hostilities will commence again in January.
This matters because temporary deals bring uncertainty. Already over the last two years we have seen inward investment slump and domestic policy in crisis: apprenticeships have halved; violent crime is escalating; arrests are now down to one in 10—that is arrests, not convictions; universal credit is in chaos; social house building has halved; elderly people are now being looked after in acute beds in hospitals because there is little care in homes; and record numbers of homeless people are living on our streets. I say to my side that not all of this is ideological; some of it is an inability to govern in an environment where there is no certainty. Please do not let this go on for another three or four years. Please stop kicking the can down the road. Let us get a deal and put it to the people so that they have the final say, just in case.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I say to those who take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that to permit voters to change their minds in changed circumstances if they wish, or to stick to their guns if not, is an affirmation, not a denial, of democracy. Others have spoken of the lack of clarity of the leave campaign. I debated against Jacob Rees-Mogg, who promised the students of Sussex University—who were largely unimpressed—a global Britain, free trade deals and an end to free movement, while Daniel Hannan MEP courageously told a more reactionary Eastbourne audience that he favoured staying in the single market and continued freedom of movement.
The Government’s position is now clear, unachievable as it may be: leave the customs union, leave the single market, no hard border with the Republic, and one regulatory framework for Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Without all that, they say there will be no deal, with all that that means for jobs, travel, borders, food, medicines and so on, yet the Government will deny the people any further say. They say Parliament will have a meaningful vote, defined by the Minister as a vote between deal and no deal. But what if there is no deal? What would the meaningful vote be then—no deal or remain? Could Parliament alone legitimately overturn the 2016 result? It certainly could not insist on a return to the negotiating table; it is too late for that, and it would not achieve anything. Will the Minister give us the answers?
So what are the prospects? Will the EU back down on a backstop? I believe no. We agreed it in December, and for the EU, it is fundamental. Will an extension of the implementation period that is time-limited or terminable at the UK’s will make any difference to the EU? I think not. Will the Government back down on our remaining in the customs union indefinitely? Plainly not. Will the Government back down on a single regime for Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK? No, they would lose the support of the DUP if they did and could not govern.
If there is no deal, would not the Government’s best way out be a referendum between no deal and remain, rather than risk losing a confidence vote? The Fixed-term Parliaments Act is hardly relevant here, because no other Government could be formed within 14 days. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I believe that we would get an extension to hold a referendum. It would also be in Labour’s interest, given its divisions, to commit to a people’s vote. Its favoured general election would inevitably and rightly be concerned with multiple issues facing our country, not just Brexit.
If we get a people’s vote, may we talk about the issues with more respect than last time for the rules, the truth and each other—not just about the economy, but about peace and international co-operation, the environment and climate change, cross-border security, education and research and the value of freedom of movement to our young people? Let us be ambitious for our country and for our continent.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I do not wish to take one side or the other in this debate; I shall limit my remarks to a few short observations about the statutory and regulatory context in which a second referendum would take place, subject to major revising primary legislation. Very little has been said about that so far. The governing Act is the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which contains a set of provisions which are clearly designed to achieve fairness in the referendal process. It seems obvious to me that it would be unsafe to ignore those provisions in the course of any attempt to achieve a second referendum, because it would be very dangerous to give the impression that the process was in any way being accelerated or rigged to achieve the outcome which, it may be fair to say, the political class would, generally speaking, wish.
Along with the Roadmap to a People’s Vote, which is an interesting document, I commend to your Lordships another document, which is quite bulky. That is the Electoral Commission’s report on the 2016 referendum. It contains a lot of constructive material, which time does not permit me to refer to. It reminds one of the course of events in 2015-16. It took, give or take, about nine months for the referendum Bill to move from introduction in the Commons to completion. By completion, I do not mean Royal Assent, I mean the passing of three essential regulations before the referendum could take place. There was then a further three-month period in the spring of 2016 before the referendum could take place.
During that entire period, the Electoral Commission played a critical role, and it seems to me that it would have to play much the same role in any second referendum. First, it was under a statutory obligation to comment on the intelligibility of the referendum question. It did so in 2015 in a way which led to the question being changed from one in clearly leading form to one in an acceptably binary form. That task may well be much more demanding if there is to be a second referendum. I have not yet heard any clear formulation of the issue—or issues, perhaps—that would be presented to the voters at a second referendum. That would have to take place, and the Electoral Commission’s role as an objective, non-party body, is clearly critical.
Following the completion of the legislation, the Electoral Commission played an important role in registering permitted participants and designating lead campaigners. All of that takes time. That has led the Electoral Commission to make what seems to me a significant recommendation. Recommendation 2 states:
“Referendum legislation should be clear at least six months before it is required to be implemented or complied with”.
By “should be clear”, it explains that that means that the legislation, including any secondary legislation, should be in place six months before the referendum is held.
It would be unwise and perhaps constitutionally improper to attempt to sweep aside those procedural protections if there is to be a second referendum. That would suggest that the suggested date for the second referendum of May next year is hopelessly optimistic. We are nowhere near a position in which we can begin to formulate the issues. Anyone who campaigns for a second referendum—I fully understand why that campaign is being undertaken—needs to address the matters to which I have referred.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, there have already been many important speeches in this debate. I found particularly significant the opening speech from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and the powerful way in which he portrayed the whole political initiative and purpose behind the work of the founders of the European Coal and Steel Community. Not for the first time, I regretted that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, came to the past decision in his political life that he did, because he is right. If we are to have any future in Britain, we must start talking about hope, vision, a sense of dynamics, purpose, social commitment and international commitment: the recognition that we belong inescapably to the world and that history will judge us by how we get to grips with playing a constructive part in shaping, developing and strengthening that world community.
I am very unhappy about the concept of another referendum. I find it very difficult to reconcile the concept of referendums with that of representative parliamentary democracy. What the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said is perfectly true: we have been told over and again that the people have decided—I find that difficult because it seems to me that it was a small majority of those who voted who decided, not the British people—and that our job is therefore to get on with doing what they require. That is not representative parliamentary democracy. Our job in a representative parliamentary democracy is to deliberate on the great, challenging issues and come to conclusions within the parliamentary system on what needs to be done. It is crucial as this goes forward that there is a decision in Parliament. That should be immediately followed by a general election in which, because we want the widest possible support from the public as a whole, they are given the opportunity to vote for political parties, which will have to make plain their position on the outcome of the vote in Parliament. That is trying to make the best of a bad job, but it is the right way and the rational way to do it.
I just make one other point. It is naive to suppose that the issues that face us are just about membership or non-membership of the European Union. They are indeed, as we have been reminded already, about all the issues of security, economics, social policy, education, family law and the whole range of life. Therefore, the British people need to be in a position to make a decision. In the context of that wider debate, is this going to be enabling and helpful for what we want to achieve or not? We were very foolish—and I count myself as guilty—to go down the road of referenda. They have no place within a representative democracy.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, in February 2016, when the referendum was called, the EU did not even feature in the top 10 things in the British people’s minds. They had four months to make a decision about such a complex issue—I have been in the thick of it for two and a half years and I am still learning. For the previous two referenda that we had, the results were 67% conclusive; this result was 52:48. While 17.2 million people is a huge amount, what about the 16 million people—also a huge amount—who voted to remain? We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, and others about the lies and the £350 million on the back of the bus. Nigel Farage himself said that if the result had been 52:48 to remain, he would fight for a second referendum. What a hypocrite.
Now we are told that this is the will and the instruction of the people and that we have to implement it. But the world has changed in two and a half years: Turkey is not going to join the EU; the migration crisis that scared so many people at its peak in 2015 has receded significantly, sad though it still is; Trump is President; there is a trade war with China; and we have seen in such an awful way what is happening with Russia’s influence. Some 100 leave constituencies have now changed to remain constituencies, according to the polls and—this is the most important thing— there are youngsters, including two of my children who were not old enough to vote at the referendum, who are now old enough to vote and it is their future that we are talking about. When it comes to the youth, 90% want to remain. Is this democracy? A dynamic democracy moves along. In a normal electoral cycle of five years, what happens? By March 2019, we will be two-thirds of the way through a normal electoral cycle and we are being held to something that is two and a half years out of date already. In a normal electoral cycle, if you win by one vote or 0.1%, you have won. But then, in five years’ time, if people do not like you, if you have lied or misled, they can just change their mind and chuck you out. Now we are being told by people like Jacob Rees-Mogg that, “It’s the long term. It’s 50 years”. Well, as Keynes said:
“In the long run we are all dead”.
This is all absolute nonsense. Some 700,000 have marched—the most since the march against the Iraq war. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has pointed out, the polls are now 45:35 for a public vote on the outcome, which increases to 50:25 if there is no deal. The Prime Minister has said time and again that:
“No deal is better than a bad deal”,
but that is rubbish. Chuck Chequers? You chuck rubbish. What about Canada-plus-plus-plus? Forget the fact that it took eight years to agree a deal with Canada—it does not work. And the backstop is a conundrum. Northern Ireland is the Brexit Achilles heel. Further, going global is a nonsense. Today, 45% of our trade is with the EU—it may be receding—and 20% on top of that is FTAs through the EU. So 65% of our trade comes through the EU—do we want to give that up for the 35% that we do not have, including the Commonwealth, which makes up only 9% of our trade? That is £8 billion—and I would pay that for the peace that we have had in our decades in the European Union. People say, “But what about all the laws that are put on us by the European Union?” That is rubbish: the laws are made by us here in this Parliament; I have seen that for 12 years.
This is all absolutely ridiculous, with all the equivalence and trying to get as good as it gets—I thought that things were going to get better. As for parliamentary democracy, there is a lot wrong with the EU—I do not like the euro or the way that the European Parliament works—but, on balance, we are far better off remaining in the European Union for the sake of our citizens, our economy and our business. We have had our cake and we have been eating it too for 45 years. We now have the tyranny of the majority: Northern Ireland voted to remain; Scotland voted to remain; London voted to remain; business voted to remain; the youth voted to remain. Our union has been threatened. We have been sold a pup and now the Government want to bypass Parliament by not giving us a meaningful vote. The British people are being bulldozed into this train crash.
What saddens me most is that Britain is losing its standing in the world day by day. London has already lost its position as the number one financial centre in the world to New York. The truly democratic thing for us to do would be to go back to the people and say, “Now you have the facts—not the utopia, not the dream, but the reality. If we have a deal, do you prefer the deal or to remain? If there is no deal, would you rather remain?” That would respect the will of the people.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow so many compelling speeches. I start by telling noble Lords about an article that I did not write in the Times. About two weeks before the referendum in Scotland, I consulted a friend who was working on the union campaign. “We’re going to win,” he said, “But I have one remaining worry. I’m concerned that Alex Salmond will offer voters a second referendum”. If he does that, my friend said, “We will lose 65-35 or worse”. The risk of supporting independence would have been removed. I realised that he was right, and the thought was powerful. I decided that I had better not write a column about it, because I did not want to help end the union by giving Mr Salmond any ideas.
If, during the European referendum, we had said that there was going to be a second chance to vote, it would have changed the result profoundly. Leave would have won a heavy victory and would have established a national consensus behind Brexit. Any second vote would have started in a fundamentally different place. But during all the debates in Parliament no one suggested two votes; no one proposed a second referendum. A second referendum might easily be even more divisive than the first. I respect the hopes of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that it would be an urbane discussion on climate change—good luck with that. It would also very likely produce an outcome that remains disputed. Let us be clear that this so-called people’s vote, if it ever took place, would indeed be a second referendum. The idea at the Labour conference that it might be a referendum without a remain option was obviously ridiculous. Mr Corbyn appeared to suggest that we might be offered two options in such a referendum, both of which he was against.
What is being proposed now is a fresh vote on Brexit. I agree with almost every argument that I have heard about the damage of Brexit. I voted remain and I agree with them partly because I made those arguments myself in the campaign. But we lost. That is what the referendum was about: testing public support for precisely the arguments and threats that we are now repeating in this Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, was auditioning for “Just a Minute”—he was all right on hesitation and deviation but not on repetition. Proposing that now, when we did not say previously that we should have a second referendum, is highly undesirable and not a costless option. Millions will feel that we have betrayed our promise. Some are even suggesting a three-option ballot using preference voting; in other words, suggesting that we defeat the result of the last referendum using the voting system rejected in the referendum before that.
We promised people they could make the choice in an up and down referendum. A second referendum is therefore an outcome to be avoided if it can be. But to say this is not enough, I am afraid. I finish with an observation and a warning. The observation is that, if Parliament cannot agree on a deal, there may well be a second referendum, however undesirable. The warning is to my Brexiteer friends. Having voted to remain, there are many of us who regard it as our constitutional duty to make our very best efforts in good faith to deliver Brexit. We do not, however, expect to be making that good faith effort alone. I am not going to make it by myself. You cannot look to us to deliver your Brexit if you will not make compromises yourself. You cannot expect us to tip the country into chaos because you will not make the good faith effort that you demand from us. Good faith cannot be a one-way street. So the warning is this, and I hope you are listening and understand that I am not alone: you cannot take the rest of us for granted.
Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)
My Lords, I voted in the referendum to remain. I still believe we should have remained, but I have argued consistently that the referendum was a democratic vote and that, therefore, we must respect the outcome. I take the view that, overall, we are lacking in confidence rather than beginning another debate. The country has the capacity to plot its own future and to build its own history.
I ask myself, am I the only person who did not understand the problems of the referendum that would need to be addressed? We are now faced with an outcome of uncertainty that we have created ourselves. That represents a challenge, which we must face up to. Yes, of course we want to maintain a good relationship with our neighbours—as well as our trading, our security and all that goes with stability on the continent of which we are a part. But at the end of the day, we are a country with a long history and a proud history. On that we should build confidence, not just for this generation but for the generations to come.
We have a democratic structure, which gives us the opportunity to change course and change our minds when we feel it is in the interests of the country to do so. All we lack is the confidence—and indeed the purpose—to make a difference to our future.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, this is a very important debate at a crucial moment. I met young people—fifth and sixth formers—in my local area to listen to what they thought about this. They felt that this was a time on which people would look back and ask a lot of questions. One question they wanted an answer to was: will our leaders draw back from the brink of disaster and, if not, why not? It will, as they saw it, seem so obvious to future generations that to proceed with an act of fundamental cultural and constitutional change, based on a referendum result with the narrowest of majorities, was an act of irresponsibility. In their clubs and schools, they told me, changes to rules or the constitution, need a two-thirds majority. Why was this not included in the referendum?
Lots of people have criticised the referendum so I shall not go on at length. But two points were made to me. First, why, since under-16s could vote in the Scottish independence referendum, could they not vote for the future of their country within the EU? Secondly, they asked, if the leave campaign has been found to have acted illegally, as the Electoral Commission has said, why have there been no prosecutions? I could not answer those questions. But it seemed, when we looked at what was still to be resolved, that there is an enormous amount, including on freedom of movement and its effect on business, science, medicines and healthcare. We have heard about Sir Paul Nurse’s letter and seen the BMA briefing. For individuals and families—not only organisations and their interests—the effects could be extremely worrying.
Will people need visas to travel to the EU and, if so, in what circumstances? Will people need private health insurance? Will older people be able to travel? Will travel insurance be too expensive for many people? These are the sorts of questions that are being asked. Returning to the young people I spoke to, they want the chance to share cultural and educational programmes such as Erasmus and Horizon, not to mention other opportunities in music, arts, culture and sport that are so important to them. The effect of Brexit on all these things has been well documented in your Lordships’ House by the work of the Select Committees.
How will it look to future generations that the UK left the most advantageous arrangements on the narrowest of majorities and entered into fundamental change to settle for something that in large part still needs to be decided during the transition period? If you talk to civil servants in Brussels, or to key witnesses, as our Select Committees do, they will tell you that there is so much still to be resolved. As a third country, having already left the EU, we will be trying during the transition period to resolve so many important issues for the future of our people, from a position of weakness.
Many people have talked about why we should have a referendum. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on his report, The Roadmap to a People’s Vote. I will not go into detail on it but I want to underline his point: yes, it will be divisive, but it will be much more divisive, and for a very long time, if we do not have the referendum. The options are very limited: leaving without a deal will be catastrophic; leaving with so little settled that we will still have to negotiate our future relationship with the EU from outside the EU will also be very damaging. I would definitely support a vote. Many people now say this offers the only way forward to resolve the current impasse and give our country another chance based on proper knowledge and facts.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for initiating this debate. It gives me the opportunity to explain my own journey from being a sceptic about the case for a second referendum to joining the march in support of it last Saturday.
As a realistic remain voter—as I would call myself—I was naturally disappointed with the result, but felt that our focus should move on to limiting the damage from our departure. An immediate call for another referendum looked to me like a refusal to accept the outcome of the vote. Two and a half years on, my views have firmly changed, for three main reasons, including, first, the truly disastrous process of the negotiations. With the possible exception of Liam Fox, I do not think that anyone believed this would be easy, but no one could have conceived how badly it would go. The blame is variously laid at the door of the intransigence of the European Commission or—rather unfairly, indeed absurdly—on a secret remain agenda on the part of the Civil Service. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, I pay tribute to Sir Jeremy Heywood. The true cause of the problem lies in a series of grievous misjudgments on the part of the Prime Minister and the Government: the triggering of Article 50 without a clear plan, thus handing the powerful lever of time over to the Commission; the setting of red lines around the single market and the customs union, building false expectations and rigidity into the negotiations from the start; and the calling of the general election in 2016, which wiped out the Government’s majority and left them hostage to the DUP and minority groups within their own party.
As a direct consequence of these misjudgments—this is my second reason for supporting another referendum—we are now faced with some very unenviable choices. Those who express strong concerns over the Chequers proposals, and say they are worse than the status quo, have a point. We will become a rule taker and risk being perpetually on the wrong end of future EU trade negotiations. Equally, the economic and social risks of a no-deal Brexit are so immense that they cannot, and should not, be countenanced.
I do not need to speak at length on this, as the CBI, the TUC and the NAO have all already done so. It strikes me that those who are relaxed about a no-deal Brexit are very often “people of means”, able to withstand the severe economic shock that would almost certainly follow. Our concern should be for the bulk of the population, for whom this is simply too big risk to take. It may be that, even at this late hour, the Prime Minister can still secure a good deal with the EU and persuade Parliament to support it, in which case today’s debate will have been redundant. But if she cannot—this seems the most likely outcome—a no-deal Brexit must not be the answer.
My third reason for changing my view is the progressive loss of Britain’s standing and influence since the referendum in an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world. Contrary to all the assurances given at the time, the reality of a diminished Britain is there for all of us to see. I expected leaving the EU to result in our having a smaller economy, but not in our becoming a smaller country.
I am very much aware of the challenges that holding a second referendum will bring. But in the circumstances that we now find ourselves, it seems the only viable option. Sherlock Holmes, in The Sign of Four, says to Watson that,
“when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.
The need for a second referendum is now the improbable truth that we should recognise.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, although I remain a remainer, I now earnestly hope that the Government will soon be in a position to put a proposed final deal to Parliament and that Parliament will accept it. In that event, I would not support a further referendum with the inevitable delay, disruption and divisiveness and the difficulty in formulating the questions, and so forth, that that would entail. But it seems very far from inevitable that such a position will be arrived at. In that event, I see the likely alternatives to be crashing out of the EU with no deal, or a general election, both of which are appalling prospects. In that situation I would then strongly support the plea for a further referendum—to call it a people’s vote is absurd, as of course is the Prime Minister’s description of it earlier in the week as a politicians’ vote. The referendum question would then be clear: the deal as negotiated or remain.
Today I touch briefly on what seem to be the two central arguments advanced against a further referendum. The first is that it would be undemocratic. But surely, to invite the public to vote again now that much of the misleading rhetoric of 2016 has been exposed and the true options have become altogether clearer, respects rather than ignores public opinion and is the true democratic way. The point is so obvious that it needs no elaboration. The second contention is that the political establishment would be seen as attempting to deprive Brexiteers of the fruits of their earlier victory. But suppose that the majority was now to favour remaining, whether because some voters have changed their minds in the light of their altered perception of the consequences or because a younger generation of voters would now be included, or both, or whatever. In that event, by what logic could Brexiteers claim that their 2016 victory entitles them still to prevail over a contrary majority view? I can see no logic in that at all.
Suppose that a majority in fact continues to favour Brexit, as well it may. Consider the benefits of a further vote to that effect: Brexiteers crowing, confirmed in their view; remainers finally resigned—if not reconciled—to that consequence; and the Government vindicated in their proposed course and substantially immune from the sort of criticism they will be exposed to if and when, following Brexit, things go catastrophically wrong.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, last Saturday, along with the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Kerslake, and more than 700,000 others, I marched through London. It was an uplifting experience. Clearly, the weather god is on our side—the sun shone on our efforts. One of the most impressive moments was when five MPs from five different parties took to the stage together to make the case for a people’s vote. Unlike my noble friend Lord Lamont, I see nothing Orwellian or absurd in the term “the people’s vote”. It is probably just as well that my noble friend is not in his place, because here I must declare an interest as a director of the People’s Vote Media Hub—which would probably sound terribly Orwellian to him. The reason why the people’s vote has adopted that name is to distinguish itself from the referendum of two years ago. It is not a rerun of that referendum. We are seeking a vote on the terms of any deal that the Government can bring forward. We have to still believe that there will be a deal, of sorts, but even if there is not and what is on offer is no deal, surely the public should have a chance to say whether this is really what they want.
In Parliament Square, Sarah Wollaston, who is a doctor as well as an MP, made the case for why any believer in democracy should support a people’s vote on the deal. It is all about the concept of informed consent. A patient might agree in principle to a certain course of treatment, but if he then learned that the side-effects are likely to be deeply damaging and the chances of success only slight, the attraction of that treatment might lessen and he might decide that he would rather not proceed. If the patient had just turned 18, and the original go-ahead had been provided not by him but by his parents, the individual on the trolley, about to be wheeled into the operating theatre for some potentially life-threatening surgery, might feel that the situation was positively Orwellian.
We are in an extraordinary situation. The Government know that they are trying to do something which will inflict long-term damage on this country. They are doing so when the economy is still fragile. Austerity may be over but the economy is not strong and individuals’ finances are precarious. Last month, credit card spending in the UK reached an all-time record level: £10.7 billion. Last year, spending outstripped earnings by an average of £900 per household. Many of those households have no cushion to help them through the difficulties that Brexit would inflict: higher food prices, job losses, and more taxes to fund that extra cash for the NHS. The rich will be insulated—they are already moving their money offshore. That arch-Brexiteer, Jacob Rees-Mogg, no less, has increasingly been directing his funds to Dublin. Those who have fared worst over recent years would suffer most from Brexit. This is looking increasingly like a posh boys’ Brexit. Those ordinary people deserve the chance to decide whether they want to consent to the Brexit that is on offer, or not.
It seems that some take the view that the country made its bed two years ago and must now lie in it, no matter how uncomfortable. The public may share that view—I doubt it—but we should at least put the question to them. Why are those who favour a bed of nails so reluctant to ask voters whether they wish to share it?
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, on the introduction of this very important debate. I have spoken little but have listened a lot to these matters over many months and have become increasingly alarmed at the Government’s conduct of these affairs. I should be clear that I was, and continue to be, a remainer.
As of today, we have no overall deal on the withdrawal Bill, nor on the political declaration on our future relationship with the EU. Should there be a deal agreed by the EU and the Prime Minister, there is no certainty that it would pass muster in the House of Commons. The possible thrust of any deal is not likely to attract our support, given the perceived threat to jobs, freedom of movement and peace in Northern Ireland. We do not expect any deal negotiated by the Prime Minister to satisfy the six tests which my party has laid down as being necessary for our support. We would, of course, strongly oppose any no-deal Brexit, not least because of its hugely negative impact on the economy.
It is not difficult to outline the challenges; it is more difficult to see the solutions. This is no wonder, given the cavalier approach to the original referendum adopted by David Cameron, which simply did not lay out the steps and the consequences of alternative outcomes.
So what about a second people’s vote? The key argument in favour of a second referendum, which I support, is that the full consequences of withdrawal—the unpicking of 40-plus years of increasingly closer integration—could not possibly have been fully contemplated and known when the vote took place. We need consider only the monumental significance for Ireland and some of the budget issues, and reflect on the huge range of matters covered in reports from your Lordships’ House over recent months. Just today, issues have been raised about medicines and the ports. Therefore, as a matter of principle, the public should be provided with an opportunity to reaffirm, or otherwise, their initial view, in light of the mass of detail that has emerged as the negotiations have ensued. This should run even if a deal was supported by the Commons.
Those who oppose this position argue that this is in fact no different to what happens at our national elections, where voters might make up their minds on an amalgam of matters, with the mix varying from voter to voter. It is then left to the Government to implement as best they can. That position is not without some logic, but given the scale and long-term significance of what is at stake, and concerns about the veracity of the information that was provided in the campaign, I favour some form of people’s vote.
Of course, all this begs the question of whether it is feasible to hold a further referendum, and we have heard several contributions on that today. The Constitution Unit has offered us its view on the practicalities of a second referendum. Given that it would be difficult to conduct such a poll before the departure date of 29 March, it considers that the Article 50 period would need to be extended. The process would need primary legislation. It would need question testing and processes for designating lead campaigners. There is the question of whether, in the interests of cohesion, and given the fractious nature of our debate to date, it would demand three questions: deal, no deal or stay. The unit stresses the importance of conducting the vote in a manner which maximises legitimacy, where the options and consequences are clear. It would require a vote in Parliament.
I support a second vote, although this does not necessarily have to take place by way of a referendum. I prefer these matters to be put to the public in a general election where they can vote, not only on the issue, but on the team they want to take the matter forward. They can put an end to the incompetence which has characterised so much of the negotiations, and which many contributions today have reflected on.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, last week the Prime Minister was questioned by Conservative MP Heidi Allen, who asked whether she accepted,
“the reality that there is no way that no deal will pass through this House. I ask with the greatest respect: what option does that leave us other than going back to the people? What else can we do?”.
The Prime Minister chose her words with care:
“If, at the end of the negotiation process, both sides agreed that no deal was there, that would actually come back to this House, and then we would see what position the House would take in the circumstances of the time”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/18; col. 426.]
That is surely the correct constitutional position. Especially with a minority Government, with no likely majority for any specific outcome amongst MPs, that is the crucial fact of political life. In our parliamentary democracy, this applies whether the Government comes back with a deal or recommends no deal. Clearly, in both circumstances, the Prime Minster and her Ministers, whatever they may have said previously, have to contemplate how they can get the approval of the British public.
Both the reports to which references have been made, one from the Constitution Unit at UCL entitled The Mechanics of a Further Referendum on Brexit and The Roadmap to a People’s Vote, come to similar conclusions when identifying the most likely scenarios for a new referendum. The former sets out the most likely sequence as follows:
“More likely, a cross-party majority in parliament in favour of a second referendum could force the government’s hand … Procedural considerations could provide an incentive for ministers to propose a conditional referendum of this kind as a compromise in the event that the ‘meaningful vote’ motion is initially rejected”.
In other words, as MPs from all four major parties have said in recent days, this may well prove to be the only viable option for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet—it is her “Get out of jail free” card. Meanwhile, it is surely unthinkable that Mr Corbyn could successfully whip all Labour MPs to support her, let alone the ERG headbangers; they too will insist that the trust should be put in the people.
We come now to the practicalities, to which reference has been made. I have looked at these with other Members of your Lordships’ House, with the aid of these two important reports. I have examined the bare necessities for a new referendum Bill, to make sure that we have the basic elements in place if and when such a Bill is required. The two reports give us some invaluable guidance. We will have to accept that the very tight timetable, both for the legislative process and the campaign itself, imposes rigorous constraints.
The new Bill will have to be drafted to mirror the 2015 Act as far as possible. It must have the same franchise, to avoid accusations of the establishment “changing the goalposts”. Similarly, the choice must be binary: either to accept the Government’s recommendation, whether it is an eventual negotiated deal, or a no-deal situation, crashing out and falling back on WTO rules; or to remain a member of the EU on current terms, which is obviously the clear choice. The one big area of reform that must be incorporated relates to the inadequacy of transparency of the digital campaign in 2016; there are already proposals available for that. Otherwise, only relatively minor tightening-up is necessary.
Is there time to complete this legislative process through both Houses, and also to have the campaign itself? First, that depends on the Commons getting on with the “meaningful vote” in good time. Secondly, as has already been said, it depends whether, and on what terms, the other 27 member states agree to the postponement of the Article 50 deadline. It seems that that will be helpful, as has also been said.
In summary, the Minister may huff and puff at the conclusion of this debate, but he is not an elected Member of the House of Commons. Neither he, nor the Prime Minister, can stop this development, nor will they wish to do so, if all the other options are closed off for them. It is practical, political and constitutionally appropriate, and it looks increasingly inevitable. Those of us who marched on Saturday can be confident that we are on the right side of history, just as we were on opposing the illegal invasion of Iraq, and that the tide of public opinion is with us.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, two years ago a political party trying to settle an internal dispute set us off on this path, imagining that the result was a foregone conclusion. Meanwhile, an unscrupulous but impressively motivated alliance delivered a protest vote from a population suffering the uneven effects of austerity, globalisation and deindustrialisation, and then had absolutely no idea what to do next.
The referendum question did not ask if we wanted to leave at any price, or any cost. It had no footnotes about NHS staff, or the value of the European space programme, nor did it allude to the need for an Irish border backstop, or the just-in-time supply lines of Jaguar Land Rover.
But that is okay because, for all that, we have politicians. A representative democracy entrusts politicians on behalf of the electorate to balance a complex matrix of allegiance—to country, to party, to the latest manifesto or referendum result—with the needs of their constituencies and local businesses, alongside their responsibilities to the planet, human rights and children. Politicians are expected to turn big ideas into technical solutions, and find political consensus in pursuit of a prosperous society that delivers for all, particularly the most vulnerable.
The Brexit votes, with rare and admirable exceptions, have failed to deliver on that compact. The complex role of the representative has been denuded into the single idea of delivering on “the will of the people”. This is short-term party expediency to protect supposed electoral prospects.
No time limit was given on leaving. The result required thoughtful consideration and further consultation with almost every sector, stakeholder and citizen—we might even have taken the time to prototype a technical solution to the Irish border issue. Yet in spite of the wild claims of the leave campaign and a partisan media beginning to unravel, both Houses, heavily whipped, rushed through Article 50, blindly creating a cliff edge, without plan or parachute.
What of the will of the people? Theresa May effectively endorsed the view that the referendum was not definitive by calling an election to secure a mandate—a mandate that the electorate refused to give her. However, rather than think again or take into account the new will of the people expressed rather differently in the light of her minority Government, she made her plans entirely dependent on the values and interests of the DUP.
In spite of the volte-face, where the two main parties, once remainers, are now leavers, Parliament has failed to provide clarity, numbers, ideas, leadership or even the basic crisis management skills required to answer the urgent set of questions in front of us.
We are a divided nation: divided in the referendum; divided in the election; divided in the Cabinet; divided in the Government; the Opposition divided between its membership and leadership; divided between young and old. To suggest that a second referendum would divide us further is simply fantastical, and a general election cannot resolve a single-issue question when all parties are putatively on the same side.
Democracy does not mean asking the people once and sticking by it whatever the consequences. Democracy entails transparency and engagement with the electorate. No leave campaigner offered us the current scenario, and no remain campaigner had a plan for leave. And absolutely no one voted for a Canada-plus, a Canada-plus-plus, a hard, a soft, a Chequers, a blind or a brave or a bodged Brexit. That simply was not on the ballot or in the conversation.
We have to give the people another vote on the reality that is now on the table, to allow them to determine their own future, because all other democratic options have been squandered.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, for tabling this debate. It seems reasonable to me that, as the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, they should agree to the terms under which this happens. The terms should be clearly explained to everyone who has a vote so that they can decide what to do. Many people did not want to leave and it has turned out to be very complex. It will change the way people have to live, which may cause endless frustrations, unless the negotiations are seen to be satisfactory. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister can give your Lordships any assurances today over concerns we may have about leaving the EU.
I declare my interest as president of the Spinal Injuries Association. Many of our members are severely paralysed, and some cannot move or feel from the neck down. Some have had catastrophic accidents, while others may have had medical conditions. On Tuesday this week, we had our all-party parliamentary group AGM. Our members are most concerned by the difficulties and insecurities that are emerging in the workforce due to Brexit. Many of our members who live in the community have personal carers from the EU. Unlike many of the British, who have their own homes and therefore do not want to live-in or work at weekends, people from the EU, who make good personal carers, come to work and save money by living in. They go on interesting holidays and save money to build a house when they go home. Our members were very worried when they heard about a report that recommended that only the brightest and the highly paid would be allowed into the UK to work. Of course we need those people, to work in research and in universities, but our members need good, honest people—not high-flyers—who will enable them to live in their own home and give them help when they need it.
It is regrettable that, upon its departure from the EU, the UK will cease to be a full member of the European Medicines Agency, which deals with safety in medicines and medical trials. It has already left London and gone to Amsterdam, which is sad, as we are leaders in this field. The Royal College of Nursing membership has made it clear that the implications of Brexit for the health and care system will be numerous. There are risks that are not credibly addressed and that may damage population health, as well as severely impact on their ability to provide safe and effective care for their patients in both the short and long term.
We need more doctors, nurses and all sorts of staff, such as radiologists. We need safe health systems. Already, we have lost many EU workers because of Brexit. Do the public know what is happening, even now, before we have left?
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, for securing this debate. To try to overturn the people’s vote of 2016 through another referendum would be like saying that a general election result should be invalidated less than half way through a Government’s term of office, simply because they were not doing well in the opinion polls. It would be totally undemocratic. No less undemocratic would be for the establishment to thwart the outcome of the people’s vote in the 2016 referendum, yet that is the prospect which I fear we are facing.
If we failed genuinely to leave the EU, the rest of this Parliament would become a fruitless attempt to rebuild trust with the majority who voted to leave in the people’s vote of 2016. I am afraid that the chances of such an attempt succeeding are about the same as the chances of Chequers delivering Brexit.
My noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick alluded to the false argument that a second referendum would be healing. I agree with him that it would not. Similarly, extending a transition period for a possibly permanently temporary period, while paying for the privilege of being subject to laws over which we would have even less say than before we supposedly left, would only prolong the agony. By contrast, as we have already heard, having the confidence to leave now on the basis of a Canada-plus free trade deal or, if necessary, on WTO terms if the EU fails to compromise, holds out the prospect of stability and prosperity free of an increasingly unstable EU, whose eurozone looks increasingly likely to collapse. Otherwise, I fear that when the people realise that, despite our protestations that we have left the EU, we are actually still having to do what the ECJ tells us, then far from getting better, the pain will only get worse.
We cannot claim, as an unelected legislature, to represent the people. That is why the responsibility of the elected House to stand up for Brexit is so much greater. I therefore appeal to colleagues in the other place to look beyond the fog of Brexit fatigue and the understandable desire to settle for a deal—any deal. I urge them to reflect on the punishment that the people would rightly inflict on those who promised to honour the result of the 2016 people’s vote, only to betray their trust and do the opposite. In deeds as well as warm words, the people’s vote in the 2016 referendum must be honoured.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, like 66 million of our fellow citizens, I was unable to get along to the march on Saturday—I was watching Stoke play Birmingham. But had I been there, I would have wanted to ask a couple of questions at least of the organisers—questions that have not been answered by many of the proponents of the people’s vote today, or if they have they have not always agreed with one another. My first question would have been: what question will be put to the people? Sundry different answers have been given to that. At the very least, before you ask for a people’s vote, you should agree on what the question should be and what should be on the ballot paper. It is not much of a slogan to say, “What do we want? A people’s vote. What’s the question? Ask me later”.
Secondly, I would like an answer to the question: what is the difference between a people’s vote and a referendum? That is an important question to ask, because if it is a referendum let us say it is a referendum. My noble friend Lord Adonis, who is disarmingly frank on these matters and who is sadly not in his place at the moment, said that there is no difference: it is just spin. He may have been joking but, my word, he was spot on. I am amazed that the Table Office agreed to capitalise “People’s Vote” on the Order Paper. It is answering its own question, basically. A people’s vote sounds a wondrous thing even when it is a huge mistake, as I believe it to be.
What are the arguments in favour of having a second referendum, which is what it is? They say that people change their minds. Well of course people change their minds, but are we to have referendums every two years on the subject? I voted to leave in 1975. I had to wait 41 years for the chance to see my view reflected in a vote. Let us test the integrity of the people’s vote campaigners. Would they agree to another referendum two years after the one they propose? Let us check every couple of years—it would be never-ending.
Another argument is that a people’s vote would end the divisions in the country and solve the problem of a possibly frozen Parliament. It would not, of course, do anything of the sort. A people’s vote would exacerbate the differences in the country and Parliament is simply a reflection of the divisions. How patronising is the people’s vote campaign? It is effectively saying, particularly to those of us in the Midlands and the north who voted so heavily to leave, “You got it wrong last time. Unlike us remainers, you didn’t understand the issues properly”. In the finest traditions of democracy, EU-style, if you get it wrong you must keep voting until you get it right, as they know well enough in Ireland and Denmark.
If I say nothing else to this House I will say just this sentence: democracy is threatened when people with power say to those without, “We know what’s good for you better than you know yourselves”. I have heard that in numerous contributions to today’s debate. The truth is that the so-called people’s vote is not an isolated event. It is part of an unremitting campaign to reverse the result, which started the day after the 2016 referendum. The aim has been to delay, discredit or reverse the referendum result. It started with the argument that we have almost forgotten now which said, “Oh well, the referendum doesn’t really matter. It’s only advisory. Don’t bother about it. If the Government want to do something else they can please themselves”. I would love to know whether this people’s vote will be advisory. I have a sense from listening to people that it is pretty mandatory. It will be the last referendum we have as far as the people’s vote campaign is concerned.
Then we were told that the leave campaign was invalid and probably needed police investigation because too much money was spent. There is no mention of the £9 million that the Government spent, which I helped to pay for and which I deeply resent. By the way, what about the money that is paying for the people’s vote campaign? It seems to be a wonderfully wealthy organisation from what we see in the adverts, but do we see the accounts? Perhaps that can be answered at some stage. Then it was the Russians who tricked us all into voting to leave—apart, of course, from the much cleverer remainers, who saw through all that.
So now it is the last throw of the dice. Let us have a second referendum to reverse the results of the first one. As a lifelong Stoke City supporter, it would be wonderful if whenever we lost a match we could demand an instant replay. But I say to the irreconcilable hard-line remainers—and there is no polite way of putting this—you lost, get over it. Surely the responsibility of us as parliamentarians, particularly in this unelected House, is to say that we were the ones who asked the people to vote, so it is now our job to respect and implement the result. Unless we want the gap between people and Parliament to get even wider than it is at present, our job is to facilitate leaving the European Union, and to do it quickly.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Shinkwin. It is also refreshing because we have had 30 consecutive speeches in favour of a referendum and we have finished with two powerful ones from them. I do not relish the prospect of a further referendum. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and others who think that it would be horribly divisive. But I do not think that that can be a sufficient reason in a matter of this importance to funk it. We have to face up to the need for it.
I have always believed that the British people should be able to make as informed a decision as possible on the subject. The decision made in 2016 could not have been informed because the terms of our departure were not then known. So when the terms are known, unless Parliament is confident beyond peradventure that they satisfy what the people voted for in 2016, there is a duty to allow people to review their decision.
Leavers should want that too. The leavers may well win a further referendum as they won the 2016 referendum. If so, although I would personally regret that decision, I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood that it is an outcome greatly to be desired. Then, leavers and remainers will be secure in knowing that the people have taken as informed a choice as possible. There can then be no recrimination if things turn out badly. If they lose, and the people decide to remain, the leavers will then avoid the charge that they have strong-armed the British people into something which, once informed, the British people did not want.
Why, then, should leavers oppose a further referendum? I have always respected those who argue for leaving. I have always acknowledged that there are good arguments for leaving this flawed and in many ways corrupt organisation. But if the reason governing those who oppose a further referendum is their fear that the people may change their mind and vote to stay, I have to say that is not a responsible or even honourable position. People should not be strong-armed into doing something which it turned out that, once informed of the terms, they do not want to do. Maybe the people will vote to leave. Maybe they will not. Without a further referendum we will never know, and this is too important an issue on which to act in ignorance.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, and I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem for introducing it. There have been strong contributions across the House. My strongest memory of this debate might well be the recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, of a banner from last Saturday that he felt was directed at Boris Johnson: “Testiculi ad Brexitam”. I have to be very careful to get the plural. The pithier Anglo-Saxon version is probably not suitable for this Chamber.
My noble friend Lord Tyler referred to various scenarios that could lead to a people’s vote. Intriguingly, in her Statement on Monday, the Prime Minister vowed not to give in,
“to those who want to stop Brexit with a politicians’ vote”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/10/18; col. 48.]
But a people’s vote is a different thing, and I do not exclude the Prime Minister herself calling for it. The UCL Constitution Unit remarked in its report that,
“in a crisis scenario it may prove the government’s only way out”.
This may well account for the war-gaming that is apparently going on in Whitehall. It may well be, of course, that the Labour Opposition reach the same conclusion. Objectors, including some speakers today, claim it is undemocratic to hold a further vote. How can any vote be undemocratic? Even if that claim is true, it would apply to the Prime Minister’s wholly unnecessary general election last year.
My noble friend Lady Doocey made the point that in 2016 people voted for a blank canvas on which a variety of pictures of Brexit were projected. I think this is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, who claimed people knew what they were voting for in 2016. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, pointed out that even if the Chequers deal or something similar to it was the final product, it is so far from what people were promised that a second vote is justified—let alone if there is no deal. It would in fact be more democratic to hold a further referendum, because people would have a real choice. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, this saga began with a vote by the people, and it should end with a vote by the people. This is the very opposite of the claim made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, of politicians telling voters that they know what is best for them—it is voters deciding what is best for them.
My noble friend Lord Campbell asked “what are those who oppose a second vote afraid of?” I think that was just answered by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who remarked that it was neither responsible nor honourable to oppose a second vote because of fear of the outcome. My noble friend Lord Marks said that a second vote is an affirmation, not a denial, of democracy. That is surely right, and it would be anti-democratic not to give people the final say, with informed consent. We know that various Brexiters have posited just that scenario on occasions in the past: a first vote in principle and a second vote on the facts: David Davis, John Redwood, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nigel Farage, even Jeremy Hunt in 2016 suggested a vote on the outcome. It is not just the usual suspects. The British Medical Association and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned, the Royal College of Nursing are calling for a people’s vote because of the mess Brexit has got into. Sir John Sawers, former chief of MI6, is so worried about the threat to Britain’s strategic position and its security that he has now come out. It is surely unusual for the former head of the Secret Intelligence Service to put his head above the parapet like that.
It was the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, who made the point that this is not a rerun or repeat of 2016. That is a fallacy. She gave half a dozen examples of scenarios where people have an opportunity to review their choice. It is not about changing their mind, but reviewing, with a view to confirming or withdrawing their choice. The obvious one is house purchase. You see what looks like a wonderful house, put in a bid and then the surveyor’s report says the house is about to fall down and it will cost hundreds of thousands to repair. It still looks like a lovely house, but it is not credible to carry on with the purchase.
I will not dwell on feasibility, because the report from the UCL Constitution Unit, which is an objective one by academics, has answers to questions of timing, how the question would be drawn up, and so on. It would be wonderful if the people’s vote would be held on 23 May, which is the date on which we would otherwise be voting for MEPs; we might then have to have a later vote for MEPs, before 2 July. Clearly we would need to regulate online campaigning, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said. Perhaps there would be an opportunity to have citizens’ assemblies, as they did so successfully in the recent referendum on abortion in Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, claimed it would exacerbate divisions to have a second vote, but as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, it is less divisive than not having one. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, said this is not a reason to funk it—we must face up to it.
I would like to end by quoting the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in his foreword to The Roadmap to a People’s Vote, from the people’s vote campaign:
“Indeed, to waste time or to do nothing are perhaps the worst options of all. History will not…be kind to any politician who hides behind purely logistical arguments, legalese or arcane parliamentary procedure in order to deny people a vote on the outcome of these Brexit negotiations at such a fragile and crucial moment for our country”.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, in addition to thanking the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for the timeliness of this debate and the historical approach he took, may I also pay tribute to the near three-quarters of a million who took to the streets on Saturday, calling for people to play a part in decisions about the future of our country, and asserting their right to have their voices heard? Agree with them or no, it was testament to the importance of this issue, to the demand for proper engagement from every region of the country, and to the energy of young people—and some not so young—in their desire to influence the outcome of the negotiations. It was also a vote of no confidence in the Government, and a reflection of the fear that the Prime Minister is leading us to an outcome that no voter envisaged on 23 June 2016, with a hard exit from nearly 50 years of close co-operation with our continental allies—an outcome that would damage the economy, jobs, our children and grandchildren’s prospects, even our security and policing, let alone the rights of our citizens resident abroad, and EU citizens living here.
As we saw in the Standard poll last night, public confidence in the Prime Minister’s ability to negotiate her way out of a paper bag is at an all-time low. No wonder when she cannot unite her own party and appears to dismiss Whitehall advice, pleading from business, farmers, supermarkets, ports and airports, the International Chamber of Commerce, consumers and haulage firms, and stark warnings of no deal both in the Government’s technical notices and from the NAO, as we heard earlier.
No one envisaged us leaving without a deal. As the CBI shows, 15% of the companies that have prepared no-deal contingency plans intend to shift jobs overseas. Medicines and fresh food would quickly be in short supply. Travel would be hampered and international driving licences and visas needed. We know the list; we have read the documents. Last week in Dover, I heard from port authorities that with 500 lorries passing through every hour, they have no facility to hold them for even two minutes to check contents, tariffs or VAT, or to ensure that the correct person or vehicle is going through. So do not expect fresh food in your shops if we fail to get a deal.
Even in leave areas, no one voted for a catastrophe or to rupture our relationship with the EU, trash our economy and see jobs exported or investment fall. Rather, as we heard, voters were promised a stronger economy, money for the NHS, the exact same benefits and sunny, sunny uplands. The Government getting it wrong in the Brexit negotiations is letting down Brexit voters even more than remainers, who never expected anything good from us leaving.
In addressing the Motion, I start with the possibility of no deal. I would like to think that we do not need to waste our time on this, but we must continue because some people still seem to threaten, or even welcome, it. If the Government fail to secure a deal, a democratic, ethical and constitutional responsibility falls to Parliament, particularly to the Commons. Knowing what we do, it would be unforgivable for Parliament to permit a no-deal exit on 29 March. Due to the Act that went through this House, if there is no deal by 21 January, the Commons has to vote on that absence of a deal—when, I assume, MPs would reject such a course of action. What then? Clearly the Government would be honour-bound to resign, having been overturned on perhaps the most significant post-war failure of any Administration. Then we would have a public vote, but in that case it would be a general election and there would be an extension of Article 50 to allow for it.
The more pertinent question today is, what if we get a deal? The first vote on a deal must lie with Parliament. From the start, your Lordships’ House called for this: making Parliament’s voice statutory rather than the simple, non-binding vote in both Houses originally suggested by the Prime Minister. We in this House helped to achieve this legal requirement of Commons endorsement for ratification of the deal to take place. Nothing in the call for a public vote on the deal should diminish that role for Parliament. If Parliament agrees the deal, we hear no demand for it then to go out for an affirmative plebiscite, although my noble friend Lord Judd suggested that it would take an election at that point.
What would happen should the deal be rejected by the Commons, which looks increasingly likely? The question is whether there should then be a public vote. Our view is that there must be a general election in that case, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie said, because the Prime Minister would have lost the confidence of Parliament on a highly significant national issue. However, should the Government insist on hanging on—I trust that they would not do that—and refuse an election, all options to break the impasse must be on the table. That includes the possibility of a public vote, although this time with 16 and 17 year-olds taking part; here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler.
I acknowledge the difficulties of arranging that. The UCL paper showed how challenging it would be in terms of needing a Bill, Electoral Commission approval of the question and a 10-week campaign. However, that could be overcome with cross-party consensus and political will, although it still leaves open what question should be on the ballot paper and whether there should be two or three options between deal, no deal and remain.
The Government have got themselves and the country into a serious mess. They adopted red lines before they understood the task. They failed to heed the advice of civil servants, industry or their allies, who also have skin in the game. They are in hock to the ERG and DUP and weakened by their foolish 2017 election. They failed to engage the Opposition to find a deal which we and the country could support.
I finish with some advice to the Minister. He should resist his normal dismissal of those whose views differ from his, acknowledge the size, legitimacy, validity and passion of Saturday’s marchers and heed advice more widely than from just his political friends. I suggest that he should listen to his noble friend Lord Finkelstein especially. He should dismiss Tory MEP Daniel Hannan’s call for a “mass boycott” of any second referendum. Hannan told Al Jazeera—not a particularly democratic channel—that a second referendum would be “utterly illegitimate”, even if it was legislated for in Parliament. That does not respect this House at all. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will also engage more constructively with this House, its committees and its experienced Members, who we have heard from today, to respond more positively than hitherto on the major questions facing UK plc.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, today’s debate has been a good one—although there was a hint of déjà vu about it. I seem to have heard many of the arguments a number of times before.
I thank and pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for introducing the debate so ably. I greatly enjoyed his history lesson, although I think he was a bit unkind to David Cameron for fulfilling his manifesto promise to call the referendum in the first place. The noble Lord was conveniently forgetting about the crucial role played by the Liberal Democrats in this. After all, I think it was the Liberal Democrat party under Nick Clegg that first called for a “real referendum on Europe”. It was in one of their famous petitions and on one of their many focus leaflets distributed around the country—so they can definitely claim that they were ahead of the game on this one. However, building on the powerful contribution of my noble friend Lord Finkelstein, I note that the petition did not say, “It’s time for two real referenda on Europe”.
I also thank all other noble Lords who participated in the debate. I will refer to some of their contributions as I go. The Motion calls on this House to take note of the case for a so-called “people’s vote” on the outcome of the negotiations between the Government and the European Union on our withdrawal from the EU. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lamont that the term is somewhat Orwellian. I assume that the debate is timed to coincide with last week’s demonstration in London, which had an interesting range of speakers. One of them was the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Vincent Cable. Apparently he seems to have forgotten that he once called the idea of a second referendum,
“seriously disrespectful and politically utterly counterproductive”—
as, indeed, the Liberal Democrats discovered at the last election. Then there was the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. After the original, authentic 2016 people’s vote, he said that the establishment needed to respect the result and that a second referendum would lead to cynicism among voters. They were both right the first time.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and to his son, to my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft, to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and to all the other marchers at the weekend that, however passionate it was—I recognise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, that it was a passionate demonstration and that people believed strongly in what they were saying—it was, of course, only a small fraction of those who participated in the original 2016 people’s vote. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.
We have already had a people’s vote in June 2016 and the people voted to leave the European Union. The calls for a second referendum are being led by a small group of diehard remainers who, by definition, do not respect the result of referenda—so why should we believe that they would somehow respect the result of another referendum? If they did succeed in overturning the result, why should leavers respect that outcome? It is a recipe for years of political and constitutional chaos. On the issue of how long it would take to hold another referendum, which I thought was powerfully addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin, in his excellent contribution, my estimate that it could take up to a year might even have been an underestimate. That was a powerful contribution.
Calling the result into question, as the Motion seeks to do, exposes three issues of fundamental importance for our country: first, the Government’s mandate, given by the British people, to secure our withdrawal from the European Union; secondly, the long-held constitutional traditions that underpin our democracy; and, thirdly, the importance of ensuring the integrity of our negotiations. I will deal with each of them in turn.
First, the result of the referendum gave the Government a clear mandate from the British people to deliver our withdrawal from the EU. It is a mandate that the Government have been working to deliver since then. I remind noble Lords that it was this Parliament that overwhelmingly voted to put the question of the UK’s membership of the European Union to the British electorate in the first place. It is worth reminding ourselves of the simple question that was put to the people on 23 June 2016. It asked:
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said in a somewhat puzzling intervention that it was not clear what the electorate said in that vote. I profoundly disagree. The result of the referendum was a clear answer to that question, giving a clear directive to the Government to withdraw from the European Union—which we respected through our notification under Article 50.
The result reflected not only extensive campaigning from both sides but considerable and prolonged debate at national and parliamentary level, underpinned by a commitment from spokesmen from all the major political parties to respect the outcome of the vote. Almost three-quarters of the electorate took part in that people’s vote, resulting in 17.4 million votes to leave the European Union. That was the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history. Parliament then overwhelmingly confirmed the result of the referendum by voting by clear and convincing majorities in both Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill.
Further still, at the last general election, more than 80% of the British people voted for parties committed in their manifesto to respecting the leave result. I respect the position of the Liberal Democrats. They campaigned against the result at the last general election and they got 7% of the vote for their trouble.
A clear majority of the electorate voted to leave and the Government believe that we must respect both the will of the British people and the democratic process which delivered that result. As the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union noted earlier this month:
“It was close but it was clear. Britain voted to leave the EU. Respecting the result: that’s the essence of our democracy”.
Secondly, seeking to second-guess the results of the referendum would be a dangerous precedent to set for our democracy and the principles that underpin our constitutional order. The British people must be able to trust their Government both to effect their will and to deliver the best outcome for them. In the summer of 2016, millions of people came out to have their say. People trusted that their vote would count—that, after years of feeling ignored by politics, their voices would be now heard. As the Prime Minister pointed out, to ask the question all over again would be a gross betrayal of our democracy and a betrayal of that trust.
More than that, there is a danger of giving rise to the same forces that have brought to power in many other European countries extremist parties to the left and to the right. I agree with my noble friend Lord Shinkwin that if we overturn the result of the referendum we run the risk of the same thing happening here. By placing partisan interests above those of the British people, we will undermine the faith that they hold in our political establishment. That would be hugely damaging to the powerful democratic values of this country and this Government—a point powerfully made by my noble friend Lord Lamont and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, in his excellent speech. It risks profound constitutional, legal and political difficulties that would be a distraction from the Government’s efforts to secure the best possible deal for the UK.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my noble friend Lord Higgins that we have always said that we will give Parliament a say on the final deal once it is agreed. Of course, the EU withdrawal Act set out exactly how that meaningful vote would work.
Lord Tyler
In the precise circumstances to which the Minister just referred, does he agree with the Prime Minister that, if the House of Commons decided it was necessary to have a further return to the public, it must happen?
Lord Callanan
I am not going to question the devices of the House of Commons. Clearly, the House of Commons will make its own decisions. The legal principles underpinning it and underpinning the meaningful vote are quite clearly set out in the EU withdrawal Act. It is of course open to the House of Commons to amend that Motion. However, an amendment for a referendum would not necessarily be legally binding on the Government; it would merely prevent us ratifying the treaty.
Lord Bilimoria
The Minister has just said that Parliament will be given a meaningful vote. The Secretary of State, Dominic Raab, has said that Parliament will not be given the option of a meaningful vote—of deal or no deal, or no deal or remain.
Lord Callanan
I do not know what contribution the noble Lord is referring to, but the process of the meaningful vote is set out in the EU withdrawal Act. He contributed to many of the debates we had in this House on that subject. When we have negotiated a deal it will be put to Parliament to approve or not, along with the accompanying economic framework.
Baroness McDonagh
Did the Minister say that if the House of Commons voted for a second referendum, that would not be legally binding on the Government? Could he repeat that and explain how the previous court decision that Parliament was supreme in these matters works with that opinion?
Lord Callanan
I am not an expert on procedures in the House of Commons. There are many other distinguished Members here who are, but my understanding is that Motions in the House of Commons are not legally binding. For a further referendum to take place would require legislation to be passed. If the House of Commons passes legislation to that effect, there will of course be a referendum in that circumstance.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
The point I put to the noble Lord and that I wanted an answer to is what the meaningful vote would be in the event of no deal, not in the event that there was a deal. Would Parliament then be asked whether they wanted no deal or remain? To that we have never, ever had an answer.
Lord Callanan
I am afraid that the noble Lord again is mistaken. There is a very clear answer to that. Again, the EU withdrawal Act, which we debated extensively in this House, sets out what happens if there is no deal or Parliament rejects the deal the Government have negotiated. In such circumstances, within 21 days of that the Government must put forward a Motion in the House of Commons in neutral terms outlining how we propose to proceed. What happens in such circumstances is very clear. We debated it at length and that is now in the statute that we passed.
Thirdly, and finally, it is a well-established feature of our constitution that the Executive represent the country in international diplomacy, and this constitutional arrangement continues to apply to our withdrawal from the European Union.
There is a very real risk that the continuing campaign to overturn the referendum decision to leave is seriously undermining our negotiating position. If those on the other side believe that we may change our minds—
Lord Butler of Brockwell
I am very grateful to the Minister. Is he not making, from his point of view, a pessimistic but rather revealing statement when he says that a further referendum would overturn the decision of the British people? It would not necessarily overturn it, but apparently he thinks it would.
Lord Callanan
Actually, he does not think it would. There is a very real chance, if there were another referendum, that we would get the same result in spades. Of course, we will never know, because we are not going to have another referendum. My point is that it would provide at least a year, possibly longer, of total political and economic chaos, were we to go down that route.
As I set out, undermining the negotiating position—as many people are trying to do—will do nothing but guarantee a bad deal for the UK, something I think we all wish to avoid.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
I am most grateful; the Minister is being very generous giving way. Is he really saying that those who seek to exercise the democratic duty which they have in these matters are undermining the negotiation—in the light of the antics, if I may so put it, of the former Foreign Secretary?
Lord Callanan
I am merely making the obvious point that seeking to provide an avenue to overturn the result, to suggest that we may change our minds—and many on that side profoundly disagreed with the referendum result—provides an incentive for the EU to offer us a bad deal.
Continuing calls for a second referendum are irresponsible and will only serve to damage the negotiations—a point that we have just discussed. Let us be under no illusion: it is very clear that those advocating a second people’s vote wish to subvert the instruction given to us by the British people and to reverse the result. We have been very clear that this Government will never accept a second referendum. The British people voted to leave the EU, and we will be leaving on 29 March 2019. That is why, for over two years, we have worked to deliver a deal that sees the UK leave the EU. Our EU partners need to be clear that this Government will not overturn the result of the referendum. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that, despite the reports, there is no war-gaming going on in our department. The second referendum is not going to happen, and nobody in Whitehall is making any preparations for the unlikely event.
At the heart of the vote to leave the European Union was a wider call for change, which should neither be ignored nor undermined. As this Government deliver on the democratic decision of the British people to leave the European Union, which we will do on 29 March next year, we will also build a stronger, more meritocratic Britain. There can be no second-guessing this Government’s mandate to do exactly that.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken in this debate and, naturally, I include the Minister. I hope he will forgive me if I say that in the course of the debate, he has reminded me of the first line of a Victorian poem:
“The boy stood on the burning deck,
Whence all but he had fled”.
Personal Statement
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, having been contacted by someone intimately involved in the case of a powerful businessman using non-disclosure agreements and substantial payments to conceal the truth about serious and repeated sexual harassment, racist abuse and bullying which is compulsively continuing, I feel that it is my duty under parliamentary privilege to name Philip Green as the individual in question, given that the media have been subject to an injunction preventing publication of the full details of a story which is clearly in the public interest.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill
Thursday 25th October 2018
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 View all Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 137(a) Amendment for Committee (PDF) - (25 Oct 2018)
Immigration
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the use of DNA evidence in immigration applications.
Many thousands of immigration applications every year involve people applying to come to the UK or remain, on the basis of a family relationship with someone already here. If an individual does not have sufficient evidence to show that they are related to someone in the UK, they sometimes choose to do a DNA test to prove that relationship. Officials will then consider this evidence as part of their claim. Very often, this will be to the advantage of the applicant, because it can help establish family relationships beyond doubt where other available evidence is sometimes insufficient. However, the provision of DNA evidence must be entirely voluntary.
At the end of June, it was brought to our attention that there were some immigration cases where the provision of DNA evidence had been made a requirement to issue a visa or grant leave to remain, and not simply a request. Such demands are unacceptable. Today I want to take this opportunity to apologise to those who have been affected by this practice. The law in this context is that the provision of DNA evidence should always be voluntary and never mandatory. My predecessor made this absolutely clear with the changes she brought in in 2014.
Once we were made aware of the issue, we immediately commissioned an urgent internal review into it, which I am publishing today. Copies will be available in the House Library. My right honourable friend the Immigration Minister will be writing today to the Home Affairs Select Committee outlining the key points of the review and providing a copy.
The review covered the legal aspects of DNA use, policy and guidance, caseworking practice and correspondence with applicants, as well as oversight arrangements relating to the use of DNA. It outlines a number of areas in which guidance was unclear or wrong. It also outlines areas of operational practice where DNA evidence was improperly required and provides some initial information on the possible scale of the issue. The review makes a number of recommendations about how to address the root causes within the border, immigration and citizenship system that led to this operational practice. However, this review is not a conclusion to the work. The numbers and information in the report have been collected at pace and still need to be fully assured, and they are subject to change. Further work is needed to ascertain the full scope of the issue. But, regardless of the numbers of people affected, one case is still one too many.
I am determined to get to the bottom of how and why it was that, in some cases, people could be compelled to supply DNA evidence in the first place. The majority of cases identified so far have been part of Operation Fugal, an operation started in April 2016 to address patterns of fraud in some specific family and human rights immigration purposes. Letters sent as part of this operation incorrectly stated that the applicant must provide DNA evidence and that not providing such information without a reasonable excuse would lead to their application being refused on suitability grounds.
It has been reported that 83 applications had been refused at the time of writing the report. Seven of these seem to have been refused on suitability grounds solely for the failure to provide DNA evidence. A further six appear to have been refused on suitability grounds for failure to provide DNA, but where this is not the sole reason.
In addition to Operation Fugal, we have identified an improper approach to the use of DNA evidence in two further cases. The first relates to adult dependent relatives of Gurkhas. In January 2015, a scheme was expanded allowing adult dependent children of Gurkhas discharged before 1997 to settle in the UK. Guidance was published which stated that DNA evidence may be required, and that applications may be refused if that evidence was not provided without reasonable excuse within four weeks. This published guidance was wrong and has been updated. The report suggests that there were 51 cases identified where DNA evidence was requested from applicants at their own cost.
At the time the report was written, we were aware of four cases from the same family unit who had their application refused solely because they did not provide DNA evidence. Those decisions have now been corrected.
The second case relates to Afghan nationals. In 2013, applications from Afghan nationals formerly employed by the UK Government to resettle in the UK began to be accepted. The terms of the scheme included mandatory DNA testing for family groups, paid for by the UK Government. Current investigations suggest that no one making an application under this scheme has been refused because they did not take a DNA test. None the less, mandatory testing should not have been part of the scheme and this requirement has now been removed.
Let me be clear: across our immigration system, no one should have faced a demand to supply DNA evidence and no one should have been penalised for not providing it. In particular, I want to extend my apology to those Gurkhas and Afghans who have been affected.
The two schemes that I have described were put in place to help the families of those who have served to keep our country safe. I am sorry that demands were made of them which never should have been. I want to reassure the House that I am taking action to correct this situation. First, I have given clear instructions that officials must not seek DNA evidence on a mandatory basis in any immigration case. Secondly, I have set up a new task force so that anyone who feels that their case may have been influenced in any way by an inappropriate demand for DNA testing can get advice and support. Thirdly, we will also look to reimburse any individual who has suffered financial loss because we required DNA evidence when we should not have done so. Fourthly, we will continue closely to examine whether this approach might have been taken in any other parts of the immigration system. What we know so far is that three schemes have been affected, but we must investigate whether there are any more. I will ask for independent assurance on everything we do to establish the facts. And, fifthly, I know that the immigration system is operated by many highly committed people, but we must make sure that the structures and processes they use are fit for the modern world. I will review the structures and processes that we currently have to ensure that they can deliver a system in a way which is fair and humane.
I will now consider what form that review will take, but my starting point is that it would be helpful to have independent oversight. The review will need to build on the lessons learnt from the Wendy Williams review. I will want Wendy to play a full part in this wider exercise. I made it clear when I became Home Secretary that we need a different approach to immigration. I would be prepared to take action to put right any wrong as and when I became aware of it.
It is clear that there has been a disconnect between policy and operations. I will take any action necessary to put right wrongs or inconsistencies as and when I become aware of them. Today, I want to promise you all that I will get to the bottom of what has gone on in relation to DNA evidence. I will build an immigration system which provides control but which is also fair, humane and fully compliant with the law at all times”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the House of Commons. I shall not launch into a tirade against the Home Office and its leadership for yet another display of its own all-too-often uniquely insensitive way of handling immigration issues, or its belief that simply by announcing that the “hostile environment” has now been rebranded the “compliant environment” all the problems will be solved, or the impact on the department’s culture of the infamous net migration target of below 100,000. I think that we have reached the stage of despair. I will confine myself to asking a number of questions. The Statement makes reference to,
“an urgent internal review into it, which I am publishing today”.
Is the full review being published, or have any parts of it been removed before publication?
The Statement says that the law is that the provision of DNA evidence should always be voluntary and never mandatory. If that is a muffled way of saying that the Home Office acted illegally, does it mean that the Home Office is now liable to legal action from those who were told that it was mandatory for them to provide DNA evidence and because of that did so?
What form and level of compensation and reimbursement do the Government intend to offer to those affected by what the Statement describes as the unacceptable demands for the provision of DNA evidence? If the Home Office has in its records DNA evidence obtained through unacceptable demands, has that evidence now been deleted and, if not, why not?
According to the Statement, the internal review,
“outlines a number of areas in which guidance was unclear or wrong”.
At what level in the Home Office would such guidance, which presumably includes guidance on what actions are within the law and which are not, have been cleared? Is it at ministerial level, Permanent Secretary level or legal officer level?
Immigration cases where the provision of DNA evidence had been made a requirement were brought to the attention of the Home Office at the end of June. Why has it apparently taken so long for any Statement to be made—some four months?
The Statement makes reference to Operation Fugal, in connection with which the majority of cases so far identified have been found. The other areas relate, almost unbelievably, to adult dependent relatives of Gurkhas and Afghan nationals formerly employed by the UK. The Statement says that, so far, it is known that three schemes have been affected. Are those the three areas to which I have just referred or are they three others and, if so, which schemes?
It is almost inevitable that, at times, something will go wrong in the performance and delivery of a department’s business—no organisation can be perfect the whole time—but there seem to be rather too many problems at the Home Office. No doubt the substantial reductions in personnel have contributed—they certainly have not helped—and the approach to pay increases in the Civil Service in recent years will not have exactly boosted morale. But what is disturbing is the time it takes for some of these problems to come to light. This is once again an issue in this case.
The internal review has apparently covered oversight arrangements relating to the use of DNA, which I presume were not as effective as they should have been, but where does responsibility for having effective governance arrangements within the Home Office lie? Which committee or board within the Home Office has responsibility for ensuring that effective governance arrangements exist which will at least prevent serious misuse of powers taking place for any length of time, if not stop them occurring in the first place? Who chairs that board or committee with that overall responsibility? Indeed, is there a board or committee with that responsibility? What is the role of the Home Office Audit Committee, if any, in this regard? What is the role of the Home Office board, if there is one, and the role of its non-executive directors in this area of effective governance arrangements? I hope that the Minister will be able to say or write something about where responsibilities lie higher up the food chain in the Home Office in that regard, if not today then at a later stage.
The apology in the Statement from the Home Secretary for what has happened is welcome. His Statement commits him to a review of the structures and processes that we have to ensure that they can deliver an immigration system which is fair, humane and fit for the new immigration system that the Government say they will bring in for when we leave the European Union. I do not doubt for one moment the Home Secretary’s sincerity, but words are easy. It is when it comes to implementation and delivery that it all too often seems to go wrong at the Home Office. That is the issue that he has to solve in any revised or new immigration system, as well as making sure that the existing system can cope with all the applications from EU nationals living in the UK seeking to settle their status post Brexit.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. In the interests of time, I have edited the questions that I wish to ask so as not to repeat those of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which were all very good and pertinent.
The Minister tells us that this is in effect an apology to those affected. Will the Home Secretary contact the individuals affected to give them a personal apology? That seems the proper thing to do, because the events that we have heard about must have been quite devastating for some of those affected. Instructions have been given that officials must not seek DNA evidence on a mandatory basis. Can we be assured that “mandatory” will be given quite a wide meaning? If I were told that I was unlikely to be believed if I did not provide DNA evidence, I would regard that as mandatory, or something very close to it. A new task force has been set up, and we have heard about the external oversight, but is the task force comprised of Home Office officials? Is it they who will give advice and support, and are those affected going to be told that that advice and support will be available to them?
On reimbursement, the words in the Statement are, “looking to reimburse”. I am not suggesting that an attempt has been made to find weasel words—it is a fairly common way of saying “we will reimburse”—but I would like to hear that this is a little more than a hope, and without requiring the release of the claim, which I think was the point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
During the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry into what happened in the case of the Windrush generation—I am a member of that committee—we were concerned to know what action was taken when errors were discovered, with regard to individuals. That is perhaps another way of asking what sort of internal audit is in place and what steps are taken when it is found that mistakes have been made by individual officials. In saying that, I am not seeking to blame officials: I believe that those who operate the system seek to apply what they understand to be Home Office policy, sometimes expressed, sometimes implied.
The Statement refers to,
“how to address the root causes”,
of the problem. The “committed people”—I use the Home Secretary’s term—who operate the system will naturally seek to achieve what the politicians are aiming for: they take the detail and the tone from them. I think that happened in the case of the Windrush generation, and the hostile or compliant environment is not, to use the words of the Statement again,
“fit for the modern world”.
That is why the Liberal Democrats have recently agreed as our policy that processing immigration and asylum applications should be taken away from the Home Office, with a new dedicated unit set up. This scandal is an example of why it is important to ignore political pressure and work fairly and lawfully in processing applications.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions. Any that I do not thoroughly answer today, I will follow up afterwards.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether a full review would be published, or a partial one. The answer is yes to a full review. The noble Lord will of course appreciate that names below senior civil servant rank have been redacted. He asked whether evidence had been deleted. That is precisely one of the things that the Home Secretary has asked officials to urgently establish. He also asked whether the three schemes are different. The three cohorts to which I and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary referred are the Gurkhas, the Afghans and the cases in Operation Fugal, which are family migration cases in the main.
He also asked whether the Home Office acted illegally and what were the consequences. We have accepted, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary accepted today, that we should not have required DNA. Obviously, the consequences for individuals will vary according to individual circumstances. In answer to him and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we will be looking to reimburse individuals who suffered loss because we required DNA. The noble Lord asked about governance and accountability. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made it clear that he is going to review the structures and processes in the immigration system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether we had reached out to those affected. As I set out in the Statement, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has set up a task force within UKVI to review and conclude all outstanding Operation Fugal cases. Our intention is to complete this work by the end of October wherever possible. However of course some cases will take longer because of outstanding criminal proceedings, or where we have required or requested further information to help us make a decision. We have set up a telephone hotline to enable those who need to to speak directly to members of the task force. The hotline will not be a freephone number, but we will quickly establish an individual’s contact details and basic information and call them back at our expense. The cases that officials have identified to date which were refused solely because of, or with reference to, non-provision of DNA will be reviewed by the end of October, and, where it is considered that the application still falls to be refused on credibility grounds, a new decision letter will be issued making clear the grounds for refusal.
The noble Baroness asked whether everyone who had to pay for one—I presume that she means a DNA test—will be compensated. As I have said, we are looking to ensure that anyone who suffered financial loss will be reimbursed. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be providing more detail on how this will be done as soon as possible. She asked whether “mandatory” would be interpreted widely. We will make clear through guidance that applicants can provide a range of evidence to demonstrate relationships. If people wish to, they can volunteer DNA evidence, and sometimes they may want to do that, but it will not be mandated: they will not be required to. She also asked whether the task force would be reviewing guidance. The task force will be operationally focused, and separately the Home Secretary has asked officials to review all relevant guidance and make sure that it is correct and up to date. As she will have heard in the Statement, some of it already has been. She asked how many people were in the task force. Did she not? Well, I will tell her. About 40 people are involved in the task force, and that will be adjusted according to need. They will be reviewing cases and responding to hotline queries.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I have one question for my noble friend. In the Statement a crucial sentence states that,
“the provision of DNA evidence must be entirely voluntary”.
Why is that? Is DNA evidence not used for paternity cases and for other medical reasons? Is it not used in criminal investigations? What is the difference in principle between DNA and fingerprints or eye recognition? Surely, any means, when the country needs to know who somebody is, is perfectly legitimate.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend for that question. I am referring, and the Statement referred, purely to the immigration system. He is absolutely right that biometrics cover a number of areas, as he said, including fingerprints and iris recognition—but in this context DNA presentation should be entirely voluntary.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister may know that I have been looking at the problems which British universities are now having with visas for their staff and students, and the families of their staff. In the last two weeks I have spoken to a number of university teams about this, and on Monday a senior officer of one of our most effective and renowned universities said to me, “We pay £25,000 for a premium service because that’s the only way one gets a basic service these days”.
My strong impression is that what we have just heard is one indication of a severely overloaded system. As we approach a peak of applications coming towards March 2019, with people wanting to clarify what position they have within Britain, that system is coming close to breakdown. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the cuts in staffing, and it is clearly understaffed. Telephone lines are frequently impossible to get through to; passports are taken away and do not come back for eight to 10 weeks.
A lawyer friend of mine who, as a dual national, was asked to supply both her passports when trying to change to her new married name could not find anything in the regulations that required her to send her French as well as her British passport away for eight weeks. Can this review therefore take a rather wider survey of whether the current visa system is able to cope with the weight of applications coming to it? The series of stories that I have been hearing from university staff and university HR departments suggests that it is not coping at present.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord very nicely gives us a taste of his Question on Monday, which will be asked in a different context—that of borders. This Statement is not quite about preparations for Brexit or the sheer number of applications; it is about a specific cohort of people for whom guidance was incorrectly written. But I take the noble Lord’s point that we need the capacity and the capability to process visas which come into UKBI. Of course, we keep our capacity needs under review, but I do not deny in any way that it is a busy system. We expect that the EU citizens’ application service, which has already gone out to private beta trial, will be rolled out further. We have not experienced any problems with that so far, but the noble Lord was absolutely right to point out that preparedness, particularly towards March, will be absolutely crucial.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
My Lords, as a former Permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office—25 years ago—I listened to the Statement with huge dismay and disquiet. When I took over there, I asked myself how we could be sure that officials were exercising power responsibly, fairly and in accordance with the law—because the Home Office has powers over the lives of individuals which are formidable and can destroy people. It is a heavy responsibility. The answer that I came to then was that we had rules, guidance and committees, of course, yet we actually relied on the culture and values, where people were legally literate—often more literate than their own legal advisers—and punctilious in their wish to be consistent, but also fair and with a dash of humanity. I thought it was a culture which served the country well, and one dreaded things going wrong.
Listening today, I asked myself: what has happened to bring this about? It sounds to me like a symptom of something more serious underneath, and I want to echo the question. I worry that the burden of work is enormous, and beyond the competence and capacity of the people responsible for delivering it. Is the Minister aware of any lack of resource? Is she satisfied that the Home Office has the resources to do the work? I have an abiding concern that across government generally, particularly with Brexit, more and more complex work is being piled on a service which has been cut back radically and has lost a lot of experience. Is the Minister happy with the situation in which she finds herself?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am never happy to have to stand up and make a Statement such as this. I pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord did within the Home Office, and it is interesting that he uses almost identical words to those which my right honourable friend used earlier today, about being,
“fair, humane and fully compliant with the law”.
But the noble Lord was also right to talk about the culture, and it is true to say that when my right honourable friend became Home Secretary he talked about a culture of fairness—about seeing cases as humans and not just as cases, and taking a far more humane approach to everything that we do. The noble Lord was absolutely right to point out that some of the decisions we make can hugely impact the lives of people; we are keenly aware of that. We are undergoing a period of tight resourcing and every department is fully aware of that. I will take the noble Lord’s point back, but he makes absolutely the right points in regard to this.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government are going to review the structures and processes to make sure that they are fit for the immigration system. Will that review cover all the people who have a family relationship with somebody who is already here? I refer in particular to unaccompanied child refugees, and I very much hope that the governance review will reduce the long delays for children in the camps in Greece and northern France as they wait for the Home Office to get a move on. Can I please have some assurance about that?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord will know through our various conversations that some of the delays in children coming here are because we are awaiting information from other countries. I know he accepts that as a fair assessment of the situation. The full detail of the review being carried out of the structures and processes will be outlined in due course, so I will let him know when its actual terms of reference are ready.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the Home Secretary for the tone of that reply and I say to my noble friend that we know her personal way of looking at these matters. But this is a matter of culture and we have had a great number of speeches and talks from politicians about immigration which, frankly, have been entirely unhelpful to the Home Office in dealing with people properly. That culture is our fault, as the political parties, because we have not stood up against the loud-mouthed, racist attitudes of so many people. We really need to talk differently.
Secondly, we have cut back on the staff in a way which means that the Home Office cannot do its job properly. My opposite number as chairman of the equivalent climate change committee in China was not able to come to a very important meeting between the two scientific sides, which advise the two Governments, because we could not get his visa through. His second-in-command only got through with a visa which came the night before he flew. It is thoroughly incompetent as well as unhappy, and we really need to face that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will make three points to my noble friend. First, I join him in paying tribute to the staff of the Home Office. So often they get forgotten and come in for an awful lot of stick in Parliament from one extreme end of the argument or the other—that is, that we are being too soft or too hard on people wishing to come to this country.
My noble friend talked about China. I am about 99% certain that China is part of our visa waiver pilot. I will get back to him on that, but I am pretty certain that it is. Therefore, some of the problems that his colleague faced should not have been the case. I will look into it and get back to my noble friend.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee asked the Minister whether those affected would receive a personal apology rather than the general one that the Home Secretary has given. Will the Minister answer that question? On a more general point, the Statement seems to suggest that officials were to blame for not following policy, but surely Ministers are responsible for implementation and the culture at the Home Office, not simply for policy. Are the Government admitting that they are guilty of not having a grip on the operation of the Home Office? Ministers cannot, should not and must not blame officials for their own failures.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I absolutely concur with the last point the noble Lord made. We are the representatives of the Government. We are not blaming officials. We are looking at the wider system. Guidance which was wrong was corrected and we are looking to see whether there is other guidance that is wrong and needs to be corrected. I again pay tribute to the staff of the Home Office. This is not a blame game. We are trying to put right something that is clearly wrong. I do not know whether the Home Secretary is planning to issue a personal apology, but he clearly publicly apologised today and I believe that that apology was most sincere.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the tone of her replies. I shall ask her two things. First, among the Afghans, were there some of those very brave people who were interpreters and their families who have given measureless service to this country in the most difficult circumstances? Secondly, let me also say, following my noble friend Lord Deben and the noble Lord from the Cross Benches, the culture of targets is wrong. That is what we have suffered from for too long. The real target for the Home Office and Ministers should be to exercise the functions of that great department with sensitivity and humanity, remembering that every human being has a dignity that should be respected.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I could not at all disagree with my noble friend about what the real target of the Home Office should be. In fact, I think my right honourable friend the Home Secretary outlined that very clearly when he became Home Secretary. My noble friend is right that the target culture is wrong, and it has been done away with. I join him in paying tribute to the brave Afghan people who helped this country in spite of so much danger in many cases. My noble friend asked about interpreters. I think there may have been interpreters in that number, but I will confirm that. Our investigation so far has shown that no Afghan was refused entry to this country on the basis of DNA. I join my noble friend in paying tribute to those very brave people.
Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)
My Lords, I might have missed the point. Will the Minister share with the House the terms of reference and composition of the review? How long is it anticipated that the review will take? Will the outcome of the review be made public? Will the Minister say whether there will be any cost implications for those who contribute to and participate in the review?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I cannot tell the noble Lord the terms of reference or who will be on the review at this time. The Home Secretary will outline that in due course. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary wants Wendy Williams, who is dealing with the Windrush review, to be part of the wider exercise of this review. In view of some of the lessons that we have learned and the ways in which she operates, she will be very helpful in the review. However, I cannot give the noble Lord the detail on the review today.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the tone of this Statement. There has been much mention of culture. That is correct, but in my experience culture begins to slip when people are pushed beyond their limits in terms of work. My question to the Minister is very simple. Will the Government bite the bullet and fund more staff for this important area? With Brexit—I am thinking in terms of visas for artists—the workload will increase by a staggering amount.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
There is no doubt about it. If noble Lords were in their place for the Question earlier, they will have heard that the number of people crossing the border has increased quite substantially in the past few months. Beyond Brexit, we are expecting pressure on the system, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, pointed out. The sort of thing that has to be considered is whether we have the capacity to deal with issues such as this. Noble Lords are right to talk about the culture of the Home Office. The Home Secretary has made a firm pronouncement that it has to change.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the Minister referred repeatedly to guidance. First, will she inform the House which Minister signed off the guidance? Secondly, she seems to be agreeing that a target culture is wrong. Does that mean that we still have a target for immigration of fewer than 100,000?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
On the target of fewer than 100,000, I think the latest position is that we want to get immigration down to a sustainable level. In saying that, we want an immigration system that allows for the skills that we need in this country as opposed to looking at numbers. We have got almost full employment in this country now and going forward we need to have skills in certain areas. It is important that those needs are met or it will affect the economy.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, in 2001-02 I was the Home Office Minister for Asylum and Immigration. I do not recognise the culture that I inherited then. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, who was Cabinet Secretary, coming to visit the Home Office during my time. The Home Secretary is a big man, and I think he should be big enough to ask someone like the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, who has the past experience, not to micromanage but just to run a rule over the culture and have a look at the message on the tin to see what is missing from what was there 20 years ago.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
This House always benefits from the past experience of noble Lords such as the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Wilson. I will take that back and make sure that it is brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Affordable Housing
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley
That this House takes note of the case for building more affordable housing.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am pleased that so many colleagues have put their names down to speak in this debate, and I thank them. I thank too all those organisations that have sent briefings to us for their contribution to this debate; it is appreciated.
This debate is an opportunity for us to examine government policy on affordable housing. The Motion talks about the case for building more affordable housing—that is, more housing that is officially defined as affordable, but also housing that is more affordable for individuals, which increasingly is not the case. The general public think of affordability as related to income rather than market rates.
The term “affordable” has existed for some years. It was created by the then Deputy Prime Minister—now the noble Lord, Lord Prescott—in 2006. It was defined as,
“subsidised housing that meets the needs of those who cannot afford secure decent housing on the open market either to rent or buy”.
That seems a thoroughly reasonable definition. The official definition of “affordable rent” is that it is set at a maximum of 80% of local market rent. That definition was first introduced by the coalition Government in 2010. The problem is that that concept of affordability is out of date because it is no longer affordable in high-cost parts of the country. Indeed, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that today’s policy on affordable rents will see 1.3 million more people in poverty in 2040, placing huge additional pressures on the housing benefit bill.
In the words of Shelter, we need,
“a new generation of homes for social rent”.
Just 5,380 were built in 2016-17. Shelter estimates that we need at least 90,000 a year to meet the backlog. We have a huge shortage of decent homes and a huge backlog in demand for them. The Office for National Statistics may have downgraded its household growth projections from 210,000 per year to 159,000, but that remains a large number and may anyway omit households that would have formed but could not afford to.
The lack of affordable homes has led to the current crisis in homelessness. I am grateful to Shelter for its latest figures, which show that there are 268,000 homeless people in this country, including 123,000 children; there are 80,000 households in temporary accommodation, up by nearly half in the last five years; and there are 1.2 million households on council house waiting lists. Today we learn from the Huffington Post that 50,000 homeless households have had to move out of their communities in the last five years. I find that a national disgrace.
The Government’s White Paper, 18 months ago now in February 2017, Fixing Our Broken Housing Market, said:
“The starting point is to build more homes. This will slow the rise in housing costs so that more ordinary working families can afford to buy a home and it will also bring the cost of renting down”.
However, I submit that to bring down the cost of renting requires government support.
The evidence of unaffordable prices and rents is stark. Buying a home costs eight times annual workplace earnings; 20 years ago that figure was three and a half. Home ownership has gone down from 71% in 2003 to 63% in 2016-17, and it is just 37% today in the 25 to 34 age range. Private rents have risen steeply. The English Housing Survey in 2016-17 showed that private renters are spending 41% of their income on housing, as opposed to 31% for social renters and 19% for owner-occupiers.
There is a major affordability crisis in the private rented sector. Take Bristol: on Sunday the Observer reported that 200 people are sleeping in their vehicles in Bristol because the cost of private renting is unaffordable, given the low wages that they earn. According to the Valuation Office Agency, rents have risen 33% in Bristol in the last four years.
The Prime Minister has taken a keen personal interest in housing. She has talked in terms of a national housing crisis. She is right, but we need a coherent strategic plan to deal with the housing crisis, which still seems to be lacking. The Government’s emphasis has been on promoting owner-occupation. Last year, a further £10 billion was announced for Help to Buy but only an additional £2 billion for affordable housing, which meant only an extra 5,000 affordable homes a year. The Chartered Institute of Housing reminded us last year that only £8 billion of the £51 billion allocated for housing to 2021 will fund affordable homes. At the same time, the Office for Budget Responsibility has recently said Help to Buy pushes up house prices.
The balance between support for rent and support for owner-occupation is wrong, and perhaps there is growing recognition of that. Earlier this month, it was finally admitted that the cap on councils borrowing against their assets to build houses should be lifted. Might the Minister tell us why that decision took so long, when it could lead to around 10,000 extra affordable homes a year?
However, this speech is not all about criticism. I want to praise the Government for something: I praise them for not implementing the worst elements of the Housing and Planning Act, such as the forced sell-off of high-value council homes. What is the policy on starter homes, since they are defined as affordable? And is the forced sale of housing association homes now well and truly in the long grass? I also look forward to the impact of some of the reforms that the Government have introduced: the role of Homes England, the changes to the National Planning Policy Framework and, hopefully, some announcements in the Budget as a consequence of the Letwin review on the build-out rate.
In August, we had the social housing Green Paper, which was delayed almost a year. It is unclear why it took so long to write when in the last five years, according to the Chartered Institute of Housing, 150,000 social homes have been lost. I wonder whether the Government have taken account of the impact on the housing benefit bill of the increasing dominance of the private rented sector. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has stated that,
“investing in 80,000 affordable homes per annum could reduce the housing benefit bill by £5.6 billion per annum by 2040”.
That demonstrates that government policies must be for the long term.
But so much effort is having to go into dealing with the symptoms of the lack of sufficient homes: high house prices; high rents; rogue landlords; the misuse of viability assessments for affordable homes, which I hope is now at an end; and high housing benefit costs caused by inflating rents. As we know, private sector conditions can be very poor with insecure tenure. Almost 750,000 tenants live in unsafe or dirty homes because rogue landlords ignore the rules. Thankfully, the Government want to make progress on these issues, but they are taking time and there is a need for resources both nationally and locally. The only long-term solution to these problems is to increase the supply of new homes at prices that are genuinely affordable to those on average incomes.
Underpinning public policy should be agreed values that we are aspiring to achieve. I submit that only when those values have been achieved will we be able to say that the housing crisis is over. We need to agree the values that should underpin our approach to housing policy. These are that no one should be forced to spend more than a third of their income on housing costs. Those in work on the living wage should be able to afford to live reasonably close to where they work. No one should be forced to sleep rough or depend on temporary accommodation when they cannot find a permanent place to call home. No child should be forced to move school and away from friends because a landlord serves notice to quit because that landlord can command a higher rent if the existing tenants leave. Space standards for new homes should be sufficiently large to enable families to live comfortably in them.
I have concluded that the current housing crisis represents the biggest failure of public policy of the past 20 years. Over that time, we have built about 2 million too few homes, resulting in high prices, high rents, many fewer social homes and serious difficulties for younger people wanting to buy their own home. The Government need to achieve a threshold of 35% of affordable housing in all private developments, with a higher 50% threshold on all public land. We need to promote high-quality modular building, with its potential cost savings and faster building timescales.
Crucially, we need to capture an uplift in land values for public benefit. I note the work of the Centre for Progressive Capitalism, which states that currently 75% goes to the landowner and 25% to community benefits. It should be reversed. That requires reform to the Land Compensation Act 1961.
I also believe that the time has come to suspend the right to buy until the problem of the inadequate provision of social housing is put right. Suspending the right to buy has occurred in Scotland and will be introduced in Wales next January. Above all, we need to achieve the building of 300,000 homes a year.
If there is one immediate thing that we could achieve from this debate, it would be that the Government agreed to stop using the term “affordable” when, for so many people, homes described as affordable are out of their reach. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, with the constraints of a two-hour debate, given the number of noble Lords who wish to speak and the published time limits, the mathematics reveal very little margin for error. I urge noble Lords to stick to the limit of four minutes.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, thank heavens there are not even more Liberal Democrats wanting to speak on this subject, but we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for introducing it and I agree with much of his remarks.
We are at a hopeful moment in tackling the serious problem of providing affordable housing. As the noble Lord said, the Prime Minister takes a keen personal interest in housing, and I know that to be true. We have a Secretary of State who is new to the job and whom I know—I was a neighbour of his when I was the MP for Orpington—understands the problems of outer London. We have a Minister for Housing who was leader of Fulham Council and therefore understands very well the problems of inner London. We have my noble friend Lord Bourne, who is also aware of the problems from his local government experience. We have a good team.
In comparison with the dire days, if I may call them that, of the Housing and Planning Act—I see the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, nodding his head fiercely—we are heading in the right direction on policy. The first augury of that was the Prime Minister’s announcement at the Conservative Party conference that the Government will be lifting the cap on local authority spending on housing. Some of us campaigned for that for years and years and are absolutely delighted that it is happening.
However, there is a big roadblock, a huge boulder in the way of achieving proper policy on affordable housing: the price of land. In the south-east of England, agricultural land is priced at £22,000 per hectare. After planning permission is granted, it becomes £3.6 million per hectare. In London, that figure of £22,000 becomes £29.1 million per hectare. Land is 275 times more valuable with planning permission than without. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, pointed out, 75% of all the gains of that, which are reckoned to be £13 billion a year, go to the developers, the speculators and the landowners, when it should be the other way round.
As Shelter pointed out in its admirable document, New Civic Housebuilding, the problem is that the more that goes to the landowner or developer, the less goes into keeping the price down, having good design and quality and good local services to connect to the housing. The answer, as Shelter pointed out in its document, is to reform the compulsory purchase orders and revise the 1961 Act. That was in all our manifestos; we are all committed to that. I remind the House that no less than 150 years ago, Joe Chamberlain, the then Mayor of Birmingham, said of the CPO orders he was putting through:
“We have not the slightest intention of making profit ...We shall get our profit indirectly in the comfort of the town and in the health of the inhabitants”.
I say amen to that.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shipley; his debate could not be more timely. I declare an interest as the chair of the National Housing Federation, the trade body for housing associations in England. Everyone should be able to access a good-quality home that they can afford either to rent or to buy, but so many cannot, in so many parts of the country. For many, there is only a bleak future. This is a real crisis.
Despite recent welcome announcements by the Government, public funding for social housing has been declining for decades: 40 years ago, it was £18 billion a year. In 2015-16, it was just £1.1 billion. Over the same period, the housing benefit bill grew from £4 billion to £24.2 billion a year. The figures are stark. Crisis, the National Housing Federation and Heriot-Watt University found that issues such as hidden homelessness and young people desperate to move out of their parents’ house meant that the real need was to build 340,000 new homes per year for the next 10 years. Some 145,000 of these need to be affordable, including 90,000 for social rent. Last year in England we built only just over 5,000 homes for social rent. Rural areas fare worse than towns and cities; people are forced to leave their communities, so local pubs and schools close. What is happening to people with particular care needs? Affordable supported housing is vital to their health and well-being. Last year, virtually all the homes for affordable and social rent were built by housing associations. They are not-for-profit, so any surplus is reinvested to build more affordable homes. Government grant for affordable housing fell from 2010 to 2017, but housing associations kept building.
I was delighted to introduce the Prime Minister at the National Housing Federation conference last month. She committed an extra £2 billion for affordable housing in the next spending review period. With this certainty, housing associations can buy land and plan ahead. But housing associations will not solve the housing crisis on their own. I hope that the recent announcement of the lifting of the HRA borrowing cap for councils will unlock a new generation of partnerships between councils and housing associations to build tens of thousands more homes.
As the noble Lord, Lord Porter, has recognised, these homes will be developed by harnessing the skills, finance, land and experience of local authorities and housing associations working in partnership. I echo the noble Lords, Lord Horam and Lord Shipley, in saying that the biggest barrier to building more homes is access to land. The planning system, the developer-led “speculative” homebuilding model and the laws around land ownership and purchase have created a dysfunctional and inefficient land market. Shelter, the Conservative think tank Onward and many others have proposed reform of the Land Compensation Act 1961, so that a fairer proportion of the uplift in land value will be shared with the community and will include affordable housing. This makes sense: landowners make over £13 billion profit each year by selling land for housing. Capturing even a modest proportion of this for affordable homebuilding could be transformative. I welcome the Government’s recent acknowledgement of this, and I urge them to be bold in next week’s Budget. Will the Minister urge the Government to lead by example and make better use of the land the Government own themselves? They should instruct Homes England and departments to deliver at least 50% affordable housing across the land they own.
The country desperately needs more affordable homes. I support the measures that the Government have announced so far and, of course, the ambitions of my own party in building the homes that we need. Housing associations sit at the centre of these solutions, but they need action on land if they are to build the affordable and social rented homes that we need.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Shipley on securing this important debate on affordable housing. I will focus solely on the provision of new affordable housing for people with disabilities, including long-term illnesses.
The 2011 census reported that, overall, 29.8% of households have a person with a disability; 3.3% of households have a wheelchair user, whose housing needs are even greater. Whereas 60% of households are owner-occupied, for people with a disability it is 26%. An extraordinary 48.9% of disabled people live in social rented accommodation, which contrasts with just 17% of the ordinary population. Disabled people find it the hardest to get appropriate accommodation because there is so little of it.
Along with my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester, I sat on the Lords Committee on the Equality Act 2010 and Disability, which published its report in March 2016. In chapter 10, paragraphs 482 to 498, we set out the problems with building regulations, Part M, and Approved Document M. The two key recommendations made by the committee to the Government were, first, to ensure that building control officers have access to expert advice to monitor compliance with both Part M of the building regulations and the Equality Act; and, secondly, that local authorities should be required to provide a significant proportion of new dwellings to be wheelchair accessible or adaptable, in line with standard M4(3), and ensure that all other new dwellings comply with optional standard M4(2). Why is this important? At present, these requirements are optional and very few local authorities outside London use these higher standards, but they should. Standard M4(2)—the lifetime homes standard—provides much longer-term savings to councils, hospitals and care homes. Why? Building in the higher standard removes the needs for expensive case-by-case adaptions in the future.
Leonard Cheshire pointed out in its 2014 report The Hidden Housing Crisis that the cost of adaption to a standard home can reach £20,000. Installation of a ramp and widening the front door and other internal doors for a wheelchair costs £5,000, with nearly £10,000 for a stairlift. But we can contrast that with only £1,100 extra in the initial building costs for a lifetime home, and very reduced costs for a stairlift—just £2,500—because of the initial infrastructure design. These lifetime homes allow people with long-term conditions and a disability to remain independent at home. This is also true for the elderly as they become more frail. With an ageing population, that is vital. In these homes, it is less likely that they will fall and end up in hospital, because they have in-built rails and ramps; and less likely that they will need domiciliary care—because of walk-in showers—or, worse, to move to a care home. All these are savings to the state in the future, and so easy to build into the design. The MHCLG estimates that this could save £83,000 in the lifetime of one house.
Our Lords committee asked the Government to strengthen the Part M regulations to require a higher standard of lifetime houses. In the Government’s response to our report they did not even address this part of the recommendations. We are told that Part M is being reviewed following Grenfell, which is important, but we must also have the lifetime standards as the norm. We know from Scope, the Access Association and the lived experience of those with disabilities that trying to find accessible or adapted affordable housing is close to impossible. With the pressure on affordable housing, one group of people is the most vulnerable, and is looking to the Government to ensure that our homes of the future have accessibility built in. I ask that the Government make it a requirement that the percentage of lifetime houses is increased in all new-build homes across the country.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble lord, Lord Shipley, for initiating this debate and for addressing so ably the many points that the rest of us will not have time to cover today. I declare my interests as on the register, especially my chairing of two commissions. One is the Smith Institute/Nationwide Foundation Affordable Housing Commission, which was launched in this House last week with an extensive programme to seek solutions to the problems of housing shortages and affordability.
At our launch we unveiled the results of a YouGov survey of public opinion. This discovered that two out of three people think there is a national affordable housing crisis. Seven in 10 renters said they would need to win the lottery to buy their own home, and nearly half of the people questioned have faced financial difficulties in the last year because so much of their income has to go on paying the mortgage or the rent. So, thanks to the new Affordable Housing Commission, we now know that the great British public are right behind us in recognising that the housing difficulties faced by nearly everyone under the age of 40 represent a real crisis.
I also chair the Centre for Social Justice Housing Commission, which will publish an important report this weekend; I can give a sneak preview today. The report spells out the huge costs of failing to build new homes for those on the lowest incomes. The collective failure of successive Governments has pushed more families into the private rented sector where they struggle with higher rents. This also means the taxpayer has to pick up a frighteningly escalating housing benefit bill for the growing numbers who simply cannot afford these higher rents. The CSJ is spot on here.
In the couple of minutes I have left, I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister on her exciting, surprise announcement that local authorities will have new freedoms to borrow to build a new generation of council housing. In the year I first came into the world of social housing—1968—councils built half of the 387,000 homes constructed in the UK. In recent years their output has dried up and housing associations, great as they are, have put back less than a third of the lost council output.
In the days of the coalition Government, the noble lord, Lord Shipley, and I took an LGA delegation to discuss this issue with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We heard how impossible it was for the Government to lift the embargo on local authorities borrowing to build new homes. This would lead, according to Treasury thinking, to a massive increase in the national debt, frightening off international investment in this country. We pointed out that prudential borrowing for housing—that is, borrowing only what can be repaid from rental income—would not frighten the horses and was recognised internationally as outside the definitions of public spending and national debt. We got nowhere.
Thank you, Prime Minister, for overruling the Treasury at last and opening the door to—according to calculations by the consultancy Savills—at least 15,000 extra homes each year. If local authorities give prominence to rentals that are truly affordable to those with low or no earnings, in mixed-tenure, high-quality developments, then this will indeed be an historic step forward.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, when we look back on how, as a nation, we have responded to housing crises, we know that we are capable of amazing achievements. After the First World War, local authorities were given support to build council houses, but it was John Wheatley’s Housing Act in 1924 that revolutionised housing for hundreds of thousands of families who could leave overcrowded homes and slum conditions for well-built affordable family homes. Again, after the Second World War there was a blitz on slum housing under Aneurin Bevan—who was, tellingly, the Minister for Health and Housing, which recognised the essential link between good housing and good health. Instead of being overwhelmed by the enormous challenges, the Attlee Government supported the building of more than 1 million homes, 80% of which were council houses. This tells that once there is political will, housing crises can be dealt with.
I am sure that many of us will remember the 1966 TV classic “Cathy Come Home” and the massive impact it made on public consciousness. But unfortunately, that shared memory began to fade, particularly with the introduction of the right to buy. It was particularly hard for long-term tenants to resist the lure of huge discounts that were made available to them. But the worst aspect of that Housing Act was that it prevented councils using the income from those sales to invest in new housing. Many home owners learned at great cost the uncertainty of home ownership and the vagaries of boom and bust. As has been said, houses that should have been affordable became unaffordable.
If you look at a chart of house price inflation over the last 30 years you see what looks like a big dipper ride of huge rises and big drops, and it then goes up and down again. Common sense tells us that surely there is a much better way of doing this. Does the Minister agree that, in the first instance, housing is a human right and not a luxury? Does he also accept that democratically accountable local authorities are the best means of ensuring that local housing needs are met rather than simply leaving this to market forces?
Finally, what can be done to protect private tenants from exploitation? Is the Minister aware of the proposal in Scotland for a Mary Barbour law, which would give tenants greater security and protection from excessive rent rises? Mary Barbour led the Glasgow rent strikes during the First World War, and we need more Mary Barbours today to fight for genuinely affordable and secure housing.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will focus my comments on housing which is not just affordable to buy or rent but to live in. It is very tempting to think only of the capital cost of building new houses without considering the whole life cost of heating and maintaining it. By definition, people who need affordable housing are on low incomes and cannot afford the inevitable rising cost of energy. That is one reason for building and adapting houses that need little or no energy for space and water heating. The other reason is, of course, global warming and the need to hit our 2050 climate target well before 2050. Indeed, we should be aiming for energy positive, not just energy neutral, homes.
Energy used in homes accounts for about 20% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, and three-quarters of that comes from heating and hot water. Eighty percent of the homes people will inhabit in 2050 have already been built, meaning that it is not possible to rely on new builds alone to meet legal energy-saving targets set in the Climate Change Act 2008.
The Institution of Engineering and Technology has published a new report that highlights how the UK cannot build its way to a low-carbon future without retrofitting old, cold homes to meet 2050 climate targets. Deep retrofitting is a whole-house approach to upgrading energy efficiency in one step, as opposed to a series of incremental improvements. This includes: adding solar panels and local microgeneration, insulation and ventilation, and sustainable heating systems. It has identified the barriers to the development of a national programme of deep retrofit. They include: lack of customer demand; no effective policy driver for change, high costs per home, as there is not yet a supply chain that can deliver deep retrofits cost effectively, in volume, and at speed; and a lack of initial financing.
The report calls for both national and local government to take the lead in encouraging and supporting the necessary changes, which include: consistent policy objectives and a national programme for deep retrofit and climate resilience, with an initial focus on social housing; reducing costs and building supply-chain capacity by developing pilot programmes; engaging with home owners to discuss the benefits of deep retrofit; and creating larger projects that are attractive to investors, by aggregating smaller projects into bigger blocks and introducing more flexible ways for local authorities to borrow and invest in such programmes.
Affordable housing should be regarded as essential infrastructure: good-quality shelter is as important as food, mobility, healthcare and community. We simply cannot compete in a global sense if our housing infrastructure is inadequate and poor quality, but at present we fail on both counts.
I will finish with three other, often disregarded issues. The first is progressive, integrated design and delivery models. A House of Lords report recently dealt with offsite and modern methods of construction. We have a tremendous opportunity in the UK to embrace a genuine culture shift away from construction as we know it, towards progressive, integrated methods, employing design for manufacture and delivery. This could be a game-changer, and move us from what is now an unattractive, backward-gazing sector, to one which attracts the brightest and the best, and moves forward in an exciting way.
The second is making the most of the UK’s renewable resources, particularly timber. We have untapped potential, with the development of UK-derived innovative timber products, which could safely replace plastics, steel and concrete, which are often imported. Not enough focus is being put into supporting R&D in this area.
The third issue is the large, interconnected network of low-carbon and circular-economy industries, such as domestic-scale, micro-renewable technologies, which could emerge across urban and rural UK regions. This is particularly relevant to Wales, highland and south-west Scotland, but many other regions could contribute. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on these three opportunities.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling this timely debate. I declare an interest as an adviser and director of various real estate related companies, as outlined in my register of interests.
For too long in this country, we have allowed ourselves to be trapped in a siloed way of thinking about creating new communities. The truth is that we need to come together across divides to innovate in every area. We need to recreate the bottom rungs of the ladder to owning not just property, but your own business, vehicle, and, one day, even robots, while recognising that rents are often too high, and that we need to increase supply in every possible way, both traditional and innovative.
I want to cover an area which perhaps gets less attention compared to discussions about the role of larger private and government sector involvement in house building: the potential for meanwhile use of underutilised and dormant, or even landbanked land, whether in the form of indoor warehouses—there are millions of square feet empty in zone 1 in London alone—or in the form of outdoor sites such as car parks, derelict or even moderately contaminated land, or the hundreds of thousands of rooftops that are underutilised or empty, or partially empty, homes.
Earlier in the week, I had the privilege of launching with the mayor of Bristol an attempt to find and showcase imaginative solutions to the need for both public and private affordable housing, through the Bristol Housing Festival. At any one time, in many cities, a significant proportion of land is unused, awaiting redevelopment, or underutilised, for example in car parks, roofs or even church buildings.
Working with Bristol city council, the festival seeks to unlock some of this land for up to five years at a time, or longer, and harness interim measures to enable the world's most innovative modular-build companies and non-profit organisations to “pop up” in such sites, to provide housing for communities on waiting lists, for entrepreneurs and artists, and others living in transition. It represents a huge opportunity to learn, fail fast and figure out what could work in our future cities.
The festival will provide a way for companies such as ZEDpods, whose innovative prefab solution sits on top of existing car parks, using solar panels in the roofs above them to help charge electric cars below, to scale up and get the support from the likes of Homes England and other experts to overcome technical and regulatory challenges. It will also enable smart city innovation to progress, harnessing technologies such as blockchain and the internet of things to accelerate planning and consultation, and create meanwhile and longer term infrastructure.
Working with and serving the needs of local communities, the festival seeks to create a less combative approach to local planning, enabling communities to “try before they decide” to turn a new village into a permanent feature, as happened with Boxpark in Shoreditch, in London. It asks questions such as how we might harness industrial buildings and land and create safe, creative spaces for young and older people to live and create in while securing property; how we can work with, rather than against, the major housebuilders who landbank, encouraging them to free up space for pop-up living while they work out what to do long term with their sites; and how new models of financing housing can be developed to enable people to co-own, fractionally own and crowdfund their housing journey more sustainably.
I believe that the work in Bristol is just the beginning. The dream is to see housing festivals established in every city and region in the UK, and globally; to unlock car parks in hospitals, schools, and government buildings; to enable nurses, teachers and others to access key-worker housing affordably, and to mix that housing with that of families, young entrepreneurs and creatives to avoid the ghettos of the past. In the UK alone, raised interim housing solutions on top of car parks could create accommodation for at least 200,000 people.
The key is to help engineer down the cost of different models and to find new and old ways of financing such pop-up villages, working with employers and social housing providers open to where they will be located over a minimum seven-year period. To achieve this will require all kinds of partners—in Bristol, throughout the UK and around the world—to replicate concepts such as the festival. There will be many legal, financial, marketing, engineering and cultural challenges to overcome.
I believe that there is room for hope about the future of our country, if we are prepared to be creative. It is time that we thought outside of the box. Will my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues be open to looking at this strategy as part of the mix in addressing the housing crisis?
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The last time I looked at the figures for construction, conversion and demolition, I found that the average house in this country has to last 2,000 years. In the mid-1980s, when the national federation published the Duke of Edinburgh’s report on housing, the same calculation produced a figure of 800 years—that is the difference. I will concentrate today on the points made by Shelter. There is no sense in going over the problems; I want to concentrate on the solutions put forward by Shelter, and I will touch on some of them.
The first is the restoration of the affordable housing programme, cut by 60% in 2011 when the funding for social rent was completely removed. We also have to start to use our brains. I was on the original Standing Committee in the Commons when rent allowances became housing benefit. We warned at the time of the possibility that this subsidy to private landlords would get out of hand—it is now £24 billion. Look at the Guardian: four pages today and yesterday on the housing benefits scam for private landlords. Some of that should come back into creating social housing.
We have a housing team in the department, which I fully accept and back. But I hope that the Government have grown up. Nick Clegg said that he could not remember whether it was David Cameron or George Osborne who said:
“I don’t understand why you keep going on about the need for social housing—it just creates Labour voters”.
That was reported in the Independent on 3 September 2016, and it is not a grown-up way of looking at public policy. Given the fact that the Tories got 44% of C2DEs at the last election and Labour got 42%, the calculation and assessment does not apply anymore anyway.
Back to Shelter. Greater CPO powers for land to come into development has been touched on. The legislation could be put in the Queen’s Speech, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said, it is in all the parties’ manifestos—there is no division between us on this, and some serious action should be taken. The land value scam is crucial.
The third point Shelter made is that we need to get a central grip on this. I know that everybody says that it should be done from the bottom up and be community based—I worked with John Prescott for three years to get community planning right. But there has to be some drive in Whitehall at the top, because civil servants and Ministers come and go. You have to have a drive forward at the top, without micromanaging locally. Therefore, Shelter wants to establish development corporations that are powerful and able to assist and assemble a master plan for land, because you have to deal with CPO powers as well and act as master planners. Closing planning loopholes and the viability loophole are pretty crucial as well. Permitted development rights are really a bit of a scam that should be dealt with.
I have a suggestion. Back in 1997-98, when new Labour came into power—I am quite proud of new Labour by the way; my current leadership is not but I am—my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, who was Housing Minister at the time, was lobbied by various bodies including Shelter about what to do about rough sleeping. So she said to Louise Casey of Shelter, “Okay, come into government and fix it”. The legacy of the plan put by Louise Casey, which I inherited for a couple of years as Housing Minister, was that by 2010 we had virtually eliminated rough sleeping in this country. All the statistics show that. So my suggestion to the Government is to think big. Go back to Shelter and say, “If you’ve got a plan and you’ve got solutions, why doesn’t one of you come in and help drive this forward?”.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, I shall add to what my noble friend Lady Brinton said about housing that is accessible to disabled people. In Britain, 13.3 million people are disabled, with the figure set to rise rapidly as the population ages—and yet in England only 7% of homes have minimum accessibility features. As we have heard, Part M4 of the building regulations provides three accessibility standards: category 1, the default minimum; category 2, the much better lifetime homes standard: and category 3, the better-still wheelchair housing design standard.
This year, Habinteg, a housing association specialising in accessible homes, analysed the accessible housing policies detailed in 263 of the 365 local plans across England. It found that, although 65% of the local planning authorities that it reviewed made reference to the lifetime homes standard or category 2, only 32% made a firm commitment to deliver a specific proportion of new homes to that standard. Just 18% committed to a specific proportion of new homes using category 3.
Surely we should future-proof our investment in new homes by making the category 2 standard our minimum requirement. This is already specified in the London plan, but not everywhere. Should not requirements to meet access standards set out in building regulations be extended to change-of-use developments, which account for a significant number of new homes, particularly in our cities?
It is important to note that disabled people whose housing needs are met are four times more likely to be in employment than those with unmet needs, and having more accessible and easily adaptable homes can alleviate pressure on health and social care services and budgets, as we have already heard, for example by speeding up hospital discharge and enabling greater independence at home.
As for adapting existing housing, local authorities should be urged to make use of the new toolkits produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in partnership with Habinteg which cover, among other things, providing and managing housing adaptations and the allocation of housing. I also make a plea for an increase in the disabled facilities grant, because a lot of families face serious financial hardship when they try to fund vital adaptations to their homes themselves. This is a particular problem for families with wheelchair-using children as they get bigger and cannot be carried up and down stairs. The need for more accessible and adaptable homes is very pressing, and I urge the Government to see what action they can take to tackle this problem as soon as possible.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for initiating this debate, and declare my interests as chair of Peabody, chair of Be First and president of the Local Government Association. The term “affordable housing” has been a rather slippery concept in recent years. Those of us involved in the debates on the Housing and Planning Act—how could I forget them?—will remember well the arguments about starter homes. However you define “affordable”, there is now a consensus across the main political parties that housing has become increasingly unaffordable for too many people, and that this must be tackled as a national priority. There is also now, thankfully, a consensus that the only sustainable way to tackle this is to build many more homes of all types and tenures, and to maintain this increased delivery for a long period of time. There is no quick way of building to affordability for market, sale or rent but, ultimately, significantly increasing supply in high-demand areas is the only answer.
The wider arguments on affordable housing have been well covered in the excellent briefings we have had, and indeed by other speakers—I particularly note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the need for a delivery plan. I want to concentrate on two issues: the future of Help to Buy, and the need to dramatically increase the supply of social rented housing. It is important to remember that Help to Buy was introduced first and foremost as a countercyclical measure, at a time when the economy was stubbornly refusing to grow. Now that we are out of that recession, the scheme has become too big, too costly and counterproductive, driving up prices and creating a huge dependency in the sector. As I have said before in this House, we should not completely do away with Help to Buy, but make it much more targeted and expect much more from the housebuilders who benefit from it. Whatever the Government decide on Help to Buy, we need to end the uncertainty and get on with a decision about its long-term future. It would be helpful if the Minister in summing up could indicate when he thinks an announcement will be made on this.
After a truly terrible period when government seemed to see social housing only as part of the problem, we now have a welcome recognition by government of its vital importance. As Shelter says in its briefing, social rent is the “only tenure” that can reduce,
“homelessness and take pressure off the housing benefit system”.
The lifting of the cap on borrowing by local authorities is therefore particularly welcome, and it would be helpful for the Minister to say when measures to deliver this will be brought forward, and if he believes that primary legislation will be required.
We should be in no doubt, though, of the huge amount of ground that has to be made up. According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the number of social houses has declined by a half from the 1980s when they housed a third of all families, mainly due to the non-replacement of Right to Buy. To seriously reverse this decline, we need getting on for a third of the 300,000 new homes planned by the Government to be social-rented or genuinely affordable. This would involve getting on for a tenfold increase on what we are currently achieving. To deliver this will need more than lifting the local authority borrowing cap, helpful though that is. It will require restoring social housing grants, increasing grant rates, investing more in enabling infrastructure and providing some protection on sales risks in a very uncertain market. Without this, however committed housing associations like Peabody are to raising our game and delivering more, we will struggle to do what is needed.
I hope the Minister recognises the scale of the challenge we face here. We should be clear, though, that this is not mission impossible. We have done this before in our country, and we can do it again.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and agree that we need an entirely new approach and strategy. I applaud him, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady Bryan for putting the centrality of council housing at the heart of the debate.
The debate has been pretty restrained but a lot of people are angry about this issue. I am angry too. Within half an hour’s walk of this House, we can see how dysfunctional the housing market is. On the other side of the river, the biggest housing development in London has housing available for seven-figure sums, much of it empty and used as an investment by foreign investors. Within spitting distance of that, parts of social housing estates are being blocked off for two or three years, awaiting a regeneration programme that will itself reduce the number of social housing units. We see run-down estates. We see rabbit hutches, uninhabitable for any length of time, in the private rented sector. We see excessive rental rates, affordable by only the top 10% or 20% of the population. That is totally dysfunctional. It is unfair and a political time bomb.
Who do we blame? I blame the Government. In fact, I blame every Government for the past 40 years. They have neglected and, at times, exacerbated the problem. Most interventions by various Governments of every political hue, whatever the intent, have exacerbated the problem in practice by either inflating demand or constraining supply. Let us hope that we are in a new era. I see little sign of it being delivered but I do not blame only the Government. Some of the blame rests on those who are supposed to be centrally delivering housing in these areas. I blame some local authorities. Admittedly, they face appalling financial constraints, but some of them have gone in too deeply with developers and forgotten what they need to deliver social housing and affordable housing to their own people. I blame some housing associations. They have also lost the central part of their ethos and have become developers and landlords as much as the private sector.
In particular, I blame the building industry, which is now dominated by an oligopoly of half a dozen companies. In that sector, profit is delivered by either building high-end expensive housing or producing in volume what I refer to as rabbit hutches, with the worst space dimensions in Europe—only about half of what the Parker Morris standards previously provided. There is a lot of blame around, including from me but particularly from under-40s who face an inability to access decent housing. When I say decent housing, the quality dimension emphasised in particular by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas and Lady Brinton, is important. We are building houses that are not appropriate for young families, the disabled or our elderly population. Such houses add to the numbers but do not begin to resolve the problem.
We need a new strategy, and it has to be a pretty radical one. Over the years, I have enunciated, with no great effect on any passing Government, that we need two things. First, we need a central, effective ministry of housing that subsumes not only the supply and demand for housing but the range of housing benefits; my noble friend Lord Rooker alluded to this. Secondly, 90% of the public resources that go into housing go through the benefits system; it used to be about 10%. We could redeploy that money for a new strategic housing intervention, led by central government and delivered locally, but we need leadership. We do not need a system where we change the Housing Minister every five minutes, with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who has been here a bit longer than that and, largely unlike his predecessors, is delivering some very positive outcomes from his ministry.
We need a new era. We need a new central vehicle. We need local authorities to replace the capacity they have lost in their housing, planning and architects’ departments. We need to ensure that we make a new beginning.
Lord Suri (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his work in securing the time for this debate. I think that there is a new consensus in British politics. We all agree that house prices are far too high and that home ownership is completely beyond the reach of younger generations.
To be clear, there are real benefits to renting—people can move around more easily and diversify the assets they hold—but it can be only a phase, rather than a permanent destination. Renting indefinitely with no scope to raise the deposit required is a miserable state to be in and saps the vitality of the employment market.
Home ownership improves the stewardship of not just homes, but public places, as people have a real and tangible stake in the community they live in. Sky-high rents also prevent people moving to the parts of the country that they would be most productive in. While the evidence is mixed as to the agglomeration benefits of British cities, cities such as Oxford, York, London and Bristol substantially increase the productivity of those who go to work there. But the lack of affordable homes for sale or rent saps the ability of young people to move.
The reasons for this are quite plain. Our efforts to improve affordability have failed and might be doing damage to the overall cause. The benefits of Help to Buy have disproportionately gone towards housebuilders, who can raise prices knowing that their customers have an additional revenue source. In this country we have tinkered at the edges of a demand-side policy without addressing the real problem, which is a lack of supply.
As the draft analysis of the Letwin report says quite clearly, there is no evidence that developers try to “lock up” land from the market before they seek final planning permissions. The key problem is the lack of available land. It has been a mantra of the nimby tendency to repeat that brownfield land can solve our issues, but there simply is not enough left in our major cities to meet demand and increase supply to reduce prices to an affordable level. If developers do hoard land to maintain prices at unsustainable levels, there is a good justification for intervention by taxing the unused land at a high and escalating level.
The metropolitan green belt was a sensible idea when it first arose. Trying to prevent urban sprawl made sense and industrial urban centres were seen as something to be contained. But cities now host relatively little manufacturing and require homes within commutable distance for employees who work in service industries. Those of us who commute past Battersea power station will appreciate how mixed residential and office spaces can revive an area.
The policy has now been hijacked by an array of special interests that have a primary aim of trying to keep house prices high. In the south-east, the main complaint is that developments will be poorly planned, with no heed for infrastructure upgrades. This is patently wrong. New towns built in the post-war era are some of the most pleasant and well-served places in the country, even if they do have too many mini-roundabouts.
The land for New York’s Central Park was earmarked before the urban city grew out to meet it, due to good planning. Applying an assumption of favourability to planning applications in the green belt would end the choke that they put on truly affordable housing.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest in the register. Like others, I welcome this debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. My starting point was to put this debate into the no-brainer category, although I have been forced to reflect a little on such a simplistic approach by our Library briefing, which looks in more detail at the definitions of affordable housing and the types of affordable housing included within it.
Factors influencing the availability of affordable housing include stock and building levels, rental and purchase prices and household formation. We have a plethora of housing statistics. The most recent I have seen are to March 2017 and identify the number of affordable homes delivered in 2016-17 to be 41,530. This comprised just 5,380 for social rent, 24,000 for affordable rent and 11,800 for intermediate affordable housing. This last category includes 2,060 affordable home ownership, 8,810 shared ownership and 940 intermediate rent levels.
So the term “affordable housing”, covering all of that provision, does not carry the tag that it is universally affordable. Affordable rented housing let by local authorities or private registered providers of social housing is subject to rent controls of up to 80% of the local market rent. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, dealt with this. In some cases, this puts so-called affordable rents way beyond the reach of most families.
In Luton, rental costs in the private sector are significantly above affordable levels, and 22% of homes are now in the private sector. The loss of a private sector tenancy, in Luton as in the rest of the country, is the main reason for homelessness. Another challenge in Luton is the gap between local housing allowance rates and actual rents. The local authority has mapped these matters, showing that a household on median income could not afford anything larger than a one-bedroom property in the private rented sector—a family in a one-bedroom property. Families looking to rent a three-bedroom home at average market rents need to be within the top 30% of incomes in the town for it to be affordable. Luton is by no means unique in facing these challenges. The briefing from Shelter, referred to by others, tells us that 268,000 people are now homeless in England, including 123,000 children. Some 80,000 households are living in temporary accommodation, and 1.2 million households were on council waiting lists last year.
In what is now my home town of Luton, homelessness is a significant challenge, with more than 1,000 households currently living in temporary accommodation and more than 12,000 currently waiting for affordable housing. Last year, only 551 homes became available for letting, and only 10 homes for the 579 families waiting for four-bed or larger accommodation.
All of this supports the argument in favour of more affordable housing, particularly social housing, which others have mentioned and which, Shelter asserts, is the most effective way of reducing levels of homelessness and taking the pressure off the housing benefit system. Its analysis shows that, nationally, the private rented sector has more than doubled over the past 20 years, with private rents rising 60% faster than wages. Home ownership has, as we know, declined.
Shelter also argues for changes to planning legislation, which, it asserts, gives too much control to landowners and developers over what gets built and who takes the profit. The Minister may care to comment on this. Could he also say how he thinks the duty to co-operate is working, especially given the welcome opportunities provided by the lifting of the local authority borrowing cap, albeit not just yet?
Despite what seems to be complacency on the part of eminent economists, I submit that the extent of our housing crisis is best judged by those who suffer the misery of homelessness, dilapidated and rat-infested accommodation, high rents and diminishing prospects of home ownership.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is right to call for more affordable housing and a related strategy. I think that my noble friend Lord Whitty has written a big chunk of the latter for him.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak on behalf of a distant land—parts of the north of England—with a different perspective, where councils want to provide more affordable and other housing but cannot do so due to local housing market conditions, and where Homes England has failed to adapt its policies to local conditions. I speak with particular knowledge of east Lancashire—Pennine Lancashire—and declare my interest as a local councillor there.
These are areas where land prices are low—some will think them unbelievably low—and where the uplift in land values when houses are built can be negative, taking into account all the costs of the land. In my ward, for example, you can buy two or three-bedroom terraced houses for between £50,000 and £100,000. They are good, decent houses that are well worth living in. Former council houses cost £75,000 or a bit more. New two-bedroom houses in my ward can be bought for £130,000. Renting costs £400, and that is for a month and not a week.
The costs of building a house or managing a rented house in these areas are nevertheless the same as in other areas. There is therefore a huge question of the economic viability of new housing. If the costs of building, including land remediation on brownfield sites, are more than can be recovered from sales or rents, it needs gap funding. It is no good providing loans, because if the housing is not viable, the loans cannot in future be repaid; it needs subsidies from somewhere.
I have with me an internal briefing from my own council in Pendle, written by the senior council officer responsible for development and given to me to use by the chief executive. It is clearly too long to read out to the House, although I would really like to do so. I have provided a copy to the Minister and ask him to pass it to appropriate civil servants and to provide some answers as to how we can contribute with regard to the need to provide housing in the whole country. There is a need for housing in our area; there is just not a financial market for it.
I shall quote one sentence: “As the HCA approach”—
or Homes England as it now is—
“has moved from a regional to a more national one, increasingly we are having problems accessing funding as we are in competition with authorities across the country who often have better housing markets and the availability of much larger sites”.
The briefing gives as an example one site, Further Clough Head in Nelson, which is suitable for 200 housing units—that is big by our standards. It needs gap funding. The council has applied under five different schemes but not yet been successful. The problem is that the methodology that Homes England now uses does not cater for areas such as ours. It requires an uplift in land values, which is not there; it places an emphasis on funding much larger schemes, which it will find easier but is no use for us; it does not cater for specific local needs; and it imposes risk in respect of these marginal sites on local authorities and their agencies, which the local authorities simply cannot take on. If Homes England is not able to share the risk, it is very difficult.
I have with me a list of government schemes over the past five or six years. There were no fewer than eight or nine, which your Lordships will all be familiar with, from which the councils tried to get funding and all we got was peanuts. There are different places and different circumstances. Can we please have different policies, so that we can contribute to providing the houses that the country needs?
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. One thing that we can be sure about in this debate is that the Minister will not use his reply to say, “I’d rather not talk about that. It’s been covered already, actually”. I can understand why the chief executive of Persimmon, Mr Jeff Fairburn, said it as he walked off the set of BBC’s “Look North”. If I had had my bonus cut from £131 million to £75 million, I might feel a bit snippy with the media as well, but I think that we can rely on the Minister to give us a good reply. More than half the homes sold by Persimmon benefited from enormous taxpayer subsidies under the Government’s Help to Buy scheme, aimed at people who would have been able to buy their own home anyway. These new homes are out of the reach of 83% of working private-renting families, even with Help to Buy. I doubt whether Mr Fairburn is interested in affordable homes, whatever the definition.
As my noble friend Lord McKenzie said, we have the lowest levels of social rented housebuilding on record. Social housing is leaching out of our housing stock because of various government policies, permitted development rights, the notorious viability assessments, which took too long to clamp down on, and finally right to buy. I question whether there should be a right to buy council housing, but at the very least councils should be able to keep 100% of receipts, instead of the one-third, for investment in new housing.
The Local Government Association has estimated that local authorities have lost enough homes to house the population of Oxford in the last five years. Termination of private rented sector tenancy is now the single lead cause of homelessness, ahead of family or relationship breakdown. Other noble Lords mentioned the borrowing cap on local authority housing and mention has been made of the lax rules surrounding permitted development rights, which represent 8% of the new-build sector, with no community obligations. I agree with all that has been said. The LGA has said that we have lost more than 7,500 affordable homes over two years under the current PDR scheme.
I turn finally to housing associations. We need to bring forward the £2 billion announcement from 2022 to now. It is a relatively small figure but it might help cash-starved housing associations to preserve their stock. In my street in Peckham there are two empty properties owned by different housing associations. One is a four-storey house and the other is a ground-floor flat. Both need major refurbishment to make them habitable. There is a desperate need for social housing in the area. What is going to happen? They are both going to be sold off. The ground-floor flat has been home to successive families in need for more than 35 years, to my knowledge. Now it will no longer be available to those who are poor. If the Government really care about housing associations, they should bring forward the £2 billion grant and stop the sell-off now.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I declare my interest as one of the many vice-presidents of the Local Government Association in the House. I am privileged to be able to contribute to this debate, which has been true to the standard of your Lordships’ House—well informed, passionate and extremely wide ranging. I thank my noble friend Lord Shipley for affording us this opportunity to discuss what is, without doubt, an important issue. My contribution will be a gallop around the course.
Several noble colleagues, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Whitty, succinctly summarised the current housing crisis and offered some solutions. So much expert opinion, government policy and our own contributions today show that, to a greater or lesser extent, the case is proven: we need more affordable homes. I was grateful to my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Thomas for particularly highlighting the need for more supported homes and lifetime homes. We are indeed building far fewer such homes and of those we are building, an even smaller percentage are social homes for rent. It is important to repeat that of the 42,000 affordable homes built last year, only 5,380 were for social rent.
Let us be in no doubt about the difference; we are all guilty of using the terms interchangeably, but the real need is social rent, currently described as up to 60% of market rent, although perhaps, as has been pointed out, that is not necessarily the best definition. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was particularly exercised on that point.
I am personally in full support of the Government’s drive for diversity among housing providers and in tenure. As has been evidenced by several speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, the current policy emphasis seems to be on the delivery of numbers and home ownership. While this is indeed the tenure of choice for many, the harsh reality is such that we cannot build ourselves quickly out of this crisis and that there will always be a need for low-cost rented homes. I also believe in the diversity of people within communities and recognise that there are millions of low-waged working people for whom a home of their own is, and always will be, the council house or the housing association’s socially rented property. A sustainable town means a town for all. Our country needs these workers; indeed, I would argue that they are the lifeblood that keeps our towns, cities and villages moving and functioning.
The Government need to prioritise the delivery of homes for social rent as it is the only tenure that will effectively reduce homelessness and take pressure off the housing benefit system, as amplified by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. While there is good news in the White Paper, the revised NPPF and the Letwin review, the current Green Paper seems to reinforce the idea that the Government see social rent as a springboard to ownership or other tenures. Can the Minister clarify the Government’s position on the need for social housing and its importance in the menu of fixed tenure?
Many of the Government’s good proposals are medium to long term but in the short term, as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, said, will the Government consider allowing councils the power to restrict right to buy or have a moratorium on new-build social homes while a solution is sought to ensure one-for-one replacement? The LGA’s figures show that almost £3.5 billion in right-to-buy discounts have been handed out to council tenants over the last six years, at an average cost of £60,000 per dwelling last year. The loss of this social housing risks pushing more families into the private sector, again driving up the housing benefit bill. As we know, eviction from the private rented sector is now the single biggest cause of homelessness.
In the short term, the rise in planning fees by 20% was also welcomed. But given that the industry is still being subsidised to the tune of £125 million a year—I checked that figure but it is correct—when will we know the outcome of the recent consultation on councils’ ability to raise planning fees even further?
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, passionately pointed out that conversions from office to residential under permitted development rights have been problematic. While it has obviously increased the number of homes, it has meant depriving councils of an opportunity to leverage any contributions from developers. The LGA has shown that this has led to a loss of 7,500 potential affordable homes over two years—not to mention the lack of ability to enforce housing standards, say on room size and quality, let alone environmental standards, as outlined by my noble friend Lady Walmsley. Old office blocks do not necessarily make good homes, especially if there is nowhere for the bins, bikes and buggies to go. Will the Government reconsider removing these permitted development rights to allow councils to decide where and when it might be appropriate to use these powers to create sustainable neighbourhoods and, perhaps more importantly, to secure more homes for social rent?
The lifting of the borrowing cap was mentioned by several, including the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and certainly welcomed by most. Will the Minister outline the timeframe for this so that even more councils can get cracking and build? Councils want to be part of the solution but I draw the House’s attention to the massive variations that exist between places in the cost of building social housing. In my own authority we have spent a great deal of time and expertise, which the Minister might be pleased to know we have shared with his civil servants, on working out the true cost of subsidy for building a social home in Watford. It is at least £100,000 per unit, and that is where the land has been provided at no cost and based on Homes England’s 40-year appraisal model. By contrast, the same model built to the affordable rent standard would break even, but it is social homes that we need. Do the Government recognise that councils will need consistent long-term funding for a new generation of public homes at social rather than affordable rent levels?
It is certainly the perception of residents that under the current system landowners and developers have too much control over what is built and where. Does the Minister agree that fundamentally what is needed is to get land into development at lower cost? The high price of land is the main driver in the loss of developer contributions when the unpopular viability test is applied.
Speakers have acknowledged that in the revised NPPF this viability loophole has, we hope, been closed. It is now imperative that councils use their powers to set strict and ambitious targets and achieve them. This will become more pertinent once the housing delivery test starts to apply. The Government will no doubt be monitoring closely how this plays out.
To make progress in the longer term we need a recognition that this speculative development model with its low-value land capture is not working for communities and ordinary people. As has already been said, the Centre for Progressive Capitalism has said that 75% of uplift in land value goes to landowners’ profit and only 25% to community benefit. Interestingly, in the rest of the EU the reverse is true. Perhaps this is why we have turned a nation of nimbies into BANANAs—build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody.
Most recently, government policy, as expressed in the NPPF, sets a default level of 10% of housing on all development sites to be designated affordable. Noble Lords should note that the word is “affordable” not “social”. Did the Government give any thought to allowing councils to decide what is right for their area rather than the presumption of 10%, which is inflexible and limits local authorities’ bargaining power about what is most desirable for their area?
Finally, the noble Lords, Lord Horam and Lord Suri, eloquently expounded that the cost of land drives the current speculative development model which an increasing number of experts believe to be broken. There must be better ways of taxing land which are fairer for all parties. I know that that thinking is above my pay grade, but are our Government looking into this for serious long-term change or are they happy with the status quo? Rather controversially, is it perhaps not now time to question the whole premise of social housing being provided through the developer 106 contribution model, which is arguably ineffective, time-consuming, costly and loathed by all parties, and look to fund a much-needed renaissance of council house building by other means? It would be very popular and much needed.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Secondly, as other noble Lords have done, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on putting this Motion down for debate this afternoon.
Everyone agrees that we are in the midst of a housing crisis and that urgent action is needed to tackle the problem. To be fair, the Government have in recent times made some welcome moves, most recently with the announcement by the Prime Minister that the local authority borrowing cap will be removed—but much more needs to be done and I support calls for urgent clarification about when the cap will be removed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Horam, that most of the policies in the dreaded Housing and Planning Act have been dropped or quietly forgotten, which is excellent news. The latest one to disappear was the plan for the forced sale of council homes, which was very welcome indeed. But we are still not building enough homes and we are certainly not building enough affordable homes. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, made an important point that a significant increase in housebuilding across all tenures is urgently needed.
My noble friend Lord Whitty set out the housing problems and dysfunctional nature of the housing within a few hundred yards of this House, which can be clearly seen by all of us. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made the fair point that the housing crisis is different in different parts of the country, and we need to be more flexible in addressing these issues with different solutions in different places. My noble friends Lord Rooker and Lord McKenzie made reference to the tragedy of homelessness, which again we can see on the steps of this House, and how much we as a country need to do to tackle it.
A number of policy decisions, initiatives and even unintended consequences have come together to create a very different picture of housing in the UK today from what we see if we look back 30 or 40 years. The term “affordable housing” has become tainted and misused. In many parts of the country, and certainly in London, many of the homes deemed “affordable” are clearly unaffordable for many people. That has huge consequences for communities and society as a whole. Ensuring that everyone has a property that is warm, safe and dry is further away today than it has been for a very long time. For all the problems that this country has, it is still one of the richest in the world, so the situation of people who are not living in a decent home tonight is all the more tragic.
I shall look at some of the policy issues in play here. When right to buy was introduced, it was both popular and controversial. It was intended to help people to become home owners, and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem of course has been, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, that the social homes were not replaced; councils still cannot keep all the capital receipts from the sale of those homes, as my noble friend Lady Donaghy referred to; and the number and quality of social homes for rent have reduced significantly over recent years, to the detriment of local communities, as my noble friend Lady Bryan of Partick made reference to. So will the Minister agree to speak to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of Exchequer and raise with him the case for local authorities keeping 100% of the receipts from right to buy sales to invest in new social housing? I make it very clear that these funds should be used to build new council homes on social rents.
The right to buy policy has created further problems, with many of these former council properties finding their way into the private rented sector, with vastly increased rents and, in some cases, becoming houses in multiple occupation. Communities have been disrupted and areas that were very stable now see a constant change and flux. This is no way to build strong and stable communities.
The private rented sector has grown dramatically. While most private sector landlords offer a reasonable product, there are rogues who rip off tenants and treat them very badly—and even when they are banned by one council they continue to operate in other areas, as we have seen reported in the press in the last few days. The rogue landlord database has been a failure in this regard, and urgent changes are needed.
The housing benefit bill has soared, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said. The Government do not own a brick for the billions that they pay out in housing benefit each year as families are forced to seek accommodation in the private rented sector because there is no local authority or housing association housing for them. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, in this regard.
The planning system has often been wrongly blamed by the Government as a barrier to building new homes. The facts do not bear that out. In the past year, local authorities have approved more planning applications to build houses than have been completed. In 2016-17, 321,000 planning applications were approved and there are still 423,000 approved planning applications where not a single brick has been laid. I agree with my noble friend Lord Rooker on the need to deal with permitted development scams.
There are problems with planning that have not been addressed. We have the council tax payer still subsiding the planning process, even after the 20% rise in fees, and it would be helpful if the Minister could update the House on the consultation for a further increase of 20%. I very much support the position of the Local Government Association that we should seek to abolish these fees and introduce locally set fees to reflect local demands and local pressures.
Housing associations also have a big role to play in providing affordable homes, and are a key partner for both the Government and local authorities to provide the homes that are needed, as my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe mentioned. Housing associations are up for playing their full role in helping to build the homes we need, but the emphasis should be on truly affordable homes. The price of land is probably the biggest single barrier to building homes, as a number of Peers said.
It was most disappointing to me, when we passed a previous Bill on planning and compulsory purchase towards the end of the previous Parliament, that we were unable to persuade the Government to agree to the reasonable request from TfL and the Mayor of London to allow them to sell land below the cost value for homes for social rent. The department would not agree, which was very regrettable. I hope that the Government will see the value in allowing that to happen in future, so that the biggest barrier to building new social homes can be reduced to some extent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to off-site construction of housing. I concur with her remarks. My friend at the London Assembly Nicky Gavron produced an excellent report on off-site constructed housing and how it is set to play a much bigger part in solving the problems we are discussing today. I recommend her report to anyone who is interested in housing, as I think it is very much part of the solution.
I am a Labour and Co-operative Member of the House, and I think that the co-op sector has a big role to play. There have been exciting developments in community land trusts, which is community-led housing set up and run by local people to develop and manage homes. CLTs act as long-term stewards of the housing, ensuring that it remains generally affordable, based on what people earn in the area—and it will be affordable for years to come, for future occupiers. They have great potential to make a real difference, as does co-operative housing in general. Where the tenants are the co-op, they employ the staff and elect the board to run the co-op. I have seen wonderful examples of where co-operative housing has transformed areas to help local communities. The rents are truly affordable and estates are clean, well-managed and stable. There are excellent examples, such as the Ewart Road Housing Co-op in Crofton Park and the Phoenix Community Housing, which covers the Downham Estate in Lewisham. Both are providing community-led housing in meeting people’s needs.
It would be good if the Minister could say something about government support for housing co-ops. I hope that he agrees that, if enabled, the sector could play a much bigger role in dealing with the housing crisis.
In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling the Motion for debate today, which has enabled us to discuss this important issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate and I thank everyone who has participated in it for their contribution, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing it forward and for what was a real tour d’horizon at the beginning. He covered so many different areas of policy. I will try to do justice to his contribution, but some of his points are well above my pay grade and outside my experience. He made some excellent points.
I agree that there is a massive problem here. In fairness, all noble Lords who opined agreed that this problem did not suddenly happen; it has built up over time under successive Governments. That does not make it any less serious, but it means that we to some extent all share the blame. From the contributions I have heard, I am sure that we all want to share in solving the problem. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, that there is nothing that we cannot overcome here. There are serious challenges, but there are policy options which should be investigated and many of them were touched on in the debate.
I shall try to deal with the contributions that were made. I may end up sending my speech as an addendum to the points that I have not covered, because I am not sure I have time to make it—that will be horrific for those in my Civil Service team who have spent so much time on it. I will ensure that it is sent round.
First, my noble friend Lord Horam made some points about the cost of land. It is absolutely true that the magnet of the south-east of our country and other hot spots means that the cost of land is prohibitive in some areas. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, talked about land value and compulsory purchase powers. That was covered in our manifesto, and we are looking at consultation contributions on compulsory purchase issues. We will certainly be looking at that area.
On land value more specifically, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, we have recently introduced major reforms in planning to help local authorities to capture land value for affordable housing and to make sure that developers know the contributions expected of them. I think that this was in the Neighbourhood Planning Act, from memory. Currently, we are reviewing responses to consultations on reforms to developer contributions. It is important that we explore the options; I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness. I also thank her for her kind words about the Prime Minister’s role in this and their sharing a platform. It is important that we are seen to be tackling this together, because there is no partisan issue in seeking to get this put right.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for what she said about the importance of tackling long-term disability issues. As she knows, we have a home ownership scheme for people with long-term disability—the HOLD scheme—but, on the specifics of the standard, she made a very powerful case. I am happy to meet with her and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, if that is helpful, to see what we could do in that regard. If they can leave it with us, we will contact them to move that forward.
On the disabled facilities grant, which the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, mentioned, I will make sure that that point is made available to my noble friend Lady Buscombe at DWP. I will also share the Hansard of this debate with other government departments, because it has been so wide-ranging and there are so many issues that have come up elsewhere.
I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Best, who was the next to speak, I think. Few people have greater experience than the noble Lord, though he wears that very lightly, and I take very seriously the specific points that he made. We differ perhaps on the Help to Buy scheme; we take a different view of that, though of course we have to make sure that it is a proper use of government money. I believe that there is an aspiration of people to own their own home—though not necessarily throughout their lives because, sometimes, after leaving college or at an early stage in their career, people will want to rent and have that flexibility; it may be later that the aspiration for home ownership kicks in. It is true that not every country regards home ownership in the same way as we do; it is different in France, for example. So I might differ from the noble Lord on some of the specifics of that.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, who gave something of a historical overview of the issue, perhaps touching on issues of globalisation, which present problems that the Attlee Government would not have had. There is no escaping the way that the Attlee Government tackled the problems at the time; it was outstanding, but it was a very different world, as I think the noble Baroness would acknowledge. Issues of globalisation—also touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—mean that, in London, people come over and buy up huge tracts of land, which would have been unthinkable in the period immediately after the war or even in the 1960s. That is well beyond the narrow scope of my department on its own, but it is a problem for Governments around the world, particularly Governments in this country because of London’s international nature. It is not all in one direction, and it is tempting to say, “Let’s stop it”, but one has to remember that the magnet that brings people to London also brings capital and jobs to London. Many of the people we are talking about who aspire to own their own homes are in that category. There is no easy solution, but I acknowledge that there is certainly a problem that needs tackling.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, asked about our policy on providing greater security to private tenants. It is important that they have appropriate security. Under the Protection from Eviction Act, I think that they largely do, but we have ramped that up in relation, for example, to retaliatory eviction in the Deregulation Act 2015—if I am wrong on that I will write to her. I accept the point that she made. On the basic point of people having a right to housing and whether we accept that as a right for people, yes we do and that is, fundamentally, why we want to eliminate rough sleeping. I will come on to that later—it all links in with the basic point.
I turn to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Many of the issues she raised were not matters for this portfolio but included issues from my previous portfolio in energy and climate change, which I feel keenly. Indeed, I was the person who signed the climate change treaty for the UK in New York in early 2016, following the historic agreement in Paris. I agree very much with some of the points she was making about the need to meet targets on climate change and about this being something that links in, not with the cost of the housing per se, but with the cost of living. I am very happy to look at some of the points she made and to write to her.
There is a company the noble Baroness is probably familiar with in Swansea, South Wales, called Specific, which has done great work in making what it calls BAPS—buildings as power stations—where not only the roofs have solar panels but so, too, do the walls and windows. The Government have given money to Specific via BEIS; it is doing epoch-making stuff that links with work done by an institution she will know, the Centre for Alternative Technology in Machynlleth.
Many British companies are doing this kind of work, producing houses using modern methods of modular construction; they are very much something to look out for in the future. They can be constructed very cheaply and are often well-designed. They are not like the old kind of prefabs; they are energy-efficient and in some cases, as with Specific, they feed back into the National Grid. I am keen to support this work and have tried to do so through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; it applies to England only on housing policy, but that does not mean we should not be promoting these companies wherever they are in the United Kingdom.
There are issues of transportation, which is not always simple or energy-efficient. Some of the houses are almost flat-packed, but there is still a need to get permission from police forces to move them around the country from A to B, which can be costly for the producers. It is something we are looking at. I will write to the noble Baroness and make sure the noble Lord, Lord Henley, sees this too. I agree with her comments on integrated design and renewable resources, and on domestic-scale micro generation, very much indeed.
I thank my noble friend Lord Wei for his contribution, which blindsided me a little, on the housing festival in Bristol and the pop-up modular housing happening there. I would like to take that forward with him at a meeting as it sounded very interesting. He mentioned landbanking and housing delivery, which is associated with the Letwin review. That is something we have mentioned previously. Again, I will write a letter to cover where we are with timescales on the housing review.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for bringing up Shelter. I would like to pay tribute to Shelter, which is a valued partner in a lot of what we do, and to Polly Neate in particular, who is excellent in her role just as she was in her last one at Women’s Aid on domestic abuse. She is on the advisory committee looking at homelessness, which is advising Minister Wheeler on this. I will get more details to the noble Lord. I agree that it needs oomph to ensure that we are all over it. I know he had a previously powerful role in delivering in that area.
I agree that rough sleeping is a very important issue. I apologise if any of my responses are out of order. I have already covered the point made about the meeting by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas; I thank her for the matters she raised including on the disabled facilities grant. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, gave a very fair speech; I thank him very much for the way he phrased it and for agreeing over the diversity of what we do now. I will not overwhelm the Attlee Government with tributes, but they did a great thing that was appropriate at the time—on housing estates then, doors had to be the same colour; you could not paint your own fascias and soffits. In short, the challenge is there, but it is different. Now it is a case of diversity, because we have to look at this in the context of where we are now.
Many noble Lords touched on social housing; it was central to this debate. We have said over a period of time that social housing is a central part of what we have been seeking to do. We have perhaps made that more words than action until recently, but many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said that we have moved on this. Indeed we have, partly through the raising of the cap. That has not been immediate; the only reason for that is the need to consult with local authorities on the precise wording of what is going to be done—no more or less than that. But again, I will cover the particular timescales in the letter. In addition, and significantly—noble Lords have been fair on this—there was the Prime Minister’s announcement of the £2 billion from 2022 in partnership with, I think, eight housing associations to deliver social housing. In so far as I have more details on that, I will cover them in the letter.
I have mentioned some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I thank him very much for his kind words. He talked about the massive problems that are there, and was fair in saying that this is about every Government over the last 40 years. That is true, but I reiterate that the problems are not insuperable, and that they are associated with land value, although not in every instance. That was exemplified by points made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on how different parts of the country are in different positions. There are even hotspots in the north where housing is unaffordable, but there are certainly difficult areas in the north where housebuilding is just not on the horizon because of other problems; that probably applies to some parts of the south as well, but more notably to the north. I thank the noble Lord very much for the handout that he gave me, fairly, at the beginning, and I will make sure that we get answers to him on the various points in there that he was unable to cover in his contribution because of time pressure.
My noble friend Lord Suri spoke about the importance of people having a stake in the community they live in, and the desire for home ownership. Not everybody has that desire, but many do, and we should not ignore that. It is easy for most if not all of us, who probably own our own home; we should not forget that many other people want to own their own home and should seek to help with that where we can while ensuring proper use of resources.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, dealt—again, fairly—with the issues of affordable housing from his own experience of Luton, which has pressures on house prices, as do many towns in the east and south-east. He talked of the growth of the private rented sector, which has been a feature of the last 20-plus years and certainly the last 20 years. That is not necessarily a bad thing as long as it is properly regulated. We are seeking to do that and have made some good moves on that—we are currently doing so in the Tenant Fees Bill. It has to be properly regulated, but it is part of a diverse housing pattern, and it is not that people will necessarily want to rent houses for their whole lives. Some might—that happens in France, for example—but most will perhaps see it as a part of their housing journey and may want to do it for a relatively short period. It provides some flexibility and mobility in the job market, which is needed.
I think I have dealt with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and I will certainly pick up the other points he made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, spoke about Persimmon. She is absolutely right that this is part of the issue as well, but it is multifaceted and not just about land value. We have to make sure that we are getting proper value from some of our large builders, and the point was well made. She talked about receipts for council house sales, as did other noble Lords, including I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. We had a consultation alongside the Green Paper; I think we are looking at the responses to it but I will cover that in the letter, as I was slightly blindsided by the question of where we are specifically on that.
In a wide-ranging speech the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, talked fairly about and supported the diversity of provision, putting her finger on many of the issues about the costs and land value which I have touched on. She also mentioned design and modern methods of construction which I am very much signed up to; that is very important. She left us with a very lasting phrase in “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone” and I thank her for that. That is certainly not something we are in favour of, but I suspect civil servants will use that phrase for ever more.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, set out the position and some of the problems very fairly, as always, and I do not disagree with him. He was very fair in saying that we have moved on some of these things. I will get back to him on the specific issue of the co-op; I know that is dear to his heart and the sector does much good work. I will look at that and respond. He knows the position on the rogue landlord database. I am very keen, as is the Secretary of State, to make sure that that is open, and not just to local authorities. We are looking at a particular legislative vehicle to do that, but it is out of scope. I pushed to see whether we could include it in the Tenant Fees Bill, but we cannot. As I say, the Government are signed up to that and want to do something at the earliest possible opportunity.
In order to leave the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, a minute to speak, I thank noble Lords very much indeed for a very worthwhile debate.
Lord Kerslake
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. There was just one issue I raised on which I would welcome a reply: what is happening to the future of Help to Buy and when will we see an announcement on that?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I think we still remain committed to Help to Buy, but I will cover that in the letter in case there are points that I can add by looking at some of the detail.
Lord Shipley
I thank the Minister very much for his full reply, and thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has been extremely instructive and helpful, and I hope that when we read Hansard, there will be much in it to reflect on; the Government will no doubt reflect on it too. We have the Budget next Monday of course, and we will listen carefully to it. I understand there will then be a debate on it in your Lordships’ House on 13 November. I certainly hope that we will be in a position to explore some of these issues further on that occasion.