House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Nigel Adams)
Ministers from the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales hold regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues, including the Home Secretary, on a range of issues that are of importance to Wales. Drugs can devastate lives, ruin families and damage communities. The Government’s approach to them remains clear: we must prevent drug use and support people through treatment and recovery.
Mary Glindon
The chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council has warned that relying on local taxpayers while slashing funding from Westminster will mean tough choices about priorities for many local forces. Surely rising drug-related crime should be a priority. Will the Minister commit to fighting for more central Government funding for the police in Wales, so that they can effectively tackle those particular crimes?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for all her work in the all-party groups on this issue. I know the subject is close to her heart.
We understand that police demand is changing and complex. That is why, after speaking to all forces in England and Wales, we have provided a comprehensive settlement that is increasing total investment in the police system by more than £460 million in 2018-19.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llefarydd. Croesawaf y Gweinidog newydd. I welcome the new Minister to his place. The Minister will be aware that last night the National Assembly for Wales supported a Plaid Cymru motion to reject his Government’s deal. What, if any, attention will he pay to that crystal-clear mandate from Wales? Will he make representations to secure an official say for our nation on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, assuming we even get to that stage?
Nigel Adams
That was a rather creative way of bringing in a question about Europe under drug-related crime. However, I remember that the Welsh population voted to leave.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the hon. Lady will seek to render her inquiry more relevant and apposite to the context of the question on the Order Paper. I feel sure that that is not beyond her creative genius.
Liz Saville Roberts
The debate in my country is how to deal with crime post Brexit and the challenges that we face, with drug crime in their midst. None the less, I feel that I must explain the answer. Yesterday the Welsh Assembly voted in favour of a Plaid Cymru motion to reject the withdrawal agreement of the Minister’s Government. In addition, the Government’s own chief Brexit adviser admitted on Monday that the Joint Committee outlined in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration will not include representatives from the devolved nations. What will he and the Secretary of State do personally to rectify that deficit of representation with the Prime Minister?
Nigel Adams
The Joint Ministerial Committee does in fact involve members of the Welsh Government, so I am not entirely on the same page as the hon. Lady.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Drug-related crime across the South Wales police force area has gone up month on month from September 2017 to September 2018 by more than 22%. What discussions with Home Office colleagues has the Minister or the Secretary of State had since the summer recess about additional funding for the South Wales police in recognition of the fact that it is policing a UK capital city?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady raises a good point. This Department is talking constantly with our colleagues in the Home Office, in particular on policing matters. I remind her politely of the increased, comprehensive settlement that we agreed to three or four months ago, which will see almost half a billion pounds in 2018-19 for policing.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
As police numbers have plummeted, drug-related crime has rocketed, especially on county lines. Drug lords enforce their vile trade with knives and guns. Knife crime is half the level in Wales that it is in England; nevertheless, in the past year alone, there has been a 30% increase in knife crime in Wales. Do the Minister, the Secretary of State for Wales and his Cabinet colleagues share any responsibility for that, and what will they do about it?
Nigel Adams
It is incredibly important that we work together closely in this area. The hon. Gentleman makes some valid points about the types of crime, and that is why we must also work collaboratively with our police and crime commissioners. I know that he has a good relationship with the North Wales police and crime commissioner. Although this is a reserved matter, we are determined to work closely with Wales and ensure that the right resources are available, particularly in the case of county lines problems, which do not respect borders.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
I regularly speak with my Cabinet colleagues on a host of issues affecting Wales. Prosperity in Wales is my No. 1 priority. It is crucial that those experiencing poverty get the support that they need and that no one is left behind. We will consider the interim report’s findings carefully.
Alan Brown
It is good to hear that the Secretary of State will consider the report. The UN special rapporteur praised the Scottish Government for what they are doing to mitigate the austerity cuts from the Tory Government, but he also noted that the powers of the Welsh Government are limited in that respect. What representations has the Secretary of State had from the Labour Welsh Government about getting additional powers to mitigate that and implement welfare in a fairer manner?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the devolved settlement. He will be well aware that the Wales Act 2017 passed through this House not so long ago, but at no stage were there any calls to devolve functions from the Department for Work and Pensions or to devolve welfare, because of the volatility that that creates on the budget.
Peter Grant
The rapporteur found that one in four jobs in Wales does not pay enough for people to live on, and that Wales has the worst record of relative poverty of any of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Does the Secretary of State believe that the people and the workers of Wales deserve better than that? Will he accept that in-work poverty is a serious problem in Wales, and will he tell us what he is doing to address it?
Alun Cairns
There are two points that I would make. There were some factual errors in the report, which may well undermine the conclusions, but of course we will respond fully in due course. On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, I point to the sharp increase in payments from the national living wage, as well as the increases in the personal allowance. As a result, the inequality gap between people who have and people who do not have is at a record low level.
Marion Fellows
The UN special rapporteur highlighted that low-paid, part-time or insecure jobs are often taken up by women, because of difficulties in balancing work and the disproportionate impact of caring responsibilities. These are, of course, often the women who have been adversely affected by this Government’s increase in the state pension age. Can the Secretary of State explain just how the Government are working for the women of Wales?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting women and employment, because there are 63,000 more women in employment in Wales than there were in 2010. I also point out to her the record fall in unemployment. Reducing unemployment is the best way out of poverty, and unemployment in Wales is 3.8% whereas across the UK it is 4.1%. There will not be many times in history when unemployment in Wales is lower than the UK average.
David Linden
The list of countries that have received this kind of criticism is fairly small, and I think the UK Government should be absolutely ashamed to find themselves on that list. The reality is that people in Wales are in the difficult position of having an uncaring British Government and a Labour Government in Wales that are abdicating responsibility. Is it not the case that the only way that Wales can be a fair country is with the normal powers of independence?
Alun Cairns
It is interesting to hear that point made by a Scottish Member of Parliament, when that is not the view in Wales. As I said in relation to the report, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that poverty rates are lower than they were in 2010, and unemployment in Wales is lower than the UK average. There are more men in work, there are more women in work and the economy in Wales is growing faster than in any other part of the UK.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I know that the Secretary of State will agree that one way of tackling poverty in Wales is the growth of more high-skill, high-paid jobs, like those in the aviation and tech sectors around Bristol. Does he agree that the policies that the Government are putting in place to spread the benefit of that growth across southern Wales are exactly what is needed to tackle some of the challenges that have been identified?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend raises an important issue and points to some of the policies that we are developing to tackle the root cause. Universal credit is making a significant difference, and I would highlight the growth deals that we are promoting across the whole of Wales. Wales is the only nation of the United Kingdom that will have a growth or a city deal in every part.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Figures released this week show that one in five of my constituents has used a food bank in the past three years. Does the Secretary of State think that that is anything to do with the fact that Flintshire was one of the first areas in the roll-out of universal credit?
Alun Cairns
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He is well aware that there are myriad complex reasons why people turn to food banks. That was one of the conclusions of the all-party parliamentary group. Food banks have a key role to play in bringing back into the state welfare system people who, for a range of reasons, have fallen out of it. I am a strong supporter of my food bank and food banks across the whole of the UK because of the part that they can play.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Nigel Adams)
Our welfare reforms are incentivising work and supporting working families. The unemployment rate in Wales is at a record low. At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced new policy changes to enable working households to keep more of what they earn and to support claimants through the transition to universal credit. We will continue to take a test-and-learn approach, acting on feedback and improving the system as it rolls out.
Rosie Cooper
Perhaps the Minister could explain why the Government are determined to press ahead with managed migration in the face of the advice of more than 80 disability organisations, the Resolution Foundation and the National Audit Office that they should not do so until they have fixed the major flaws in universal credit and can cope with much greater claimant volumes.
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Lady for all the work she does in this area. I understand that she chaired a Disability Confident meeting last week. These are very important things for hon. Members to get involved with. We do not underestimate the challenge that managed migration could present, and we are working very closely with all stakeholders to design the best solution. We are keeping our options open on the design, and we are committed to keeping the House updated.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
First, may I say that I am very glad that Welsh people will now be able to claim universal credit online, just like everybody else, through the medium of Welsh? Department for Work and Pensions staff had a very complicated task in fixing the faulty system. Will the Minister tell the House what he is doing to fix the other problems relating to universal credit that people in Wales are suffering from, such as the unfair and oppressive two-child policy?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done. I am very pleased that the Welsh language version of the universal credit system was rolled out last week, I believe. Hopefully it is working well, and we will continue to monitor it. Of course, this is a huge transformational project, and it is absolutely right that, on occasion, we pause, reflect and make sure we get the system right. Fundamentally, I agree with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who said that universal credit is a force for good.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
My constituent has 10-month-old twins and has not been paid universal credit for two months. She is at risk of homelessness and is using food banks. How are the Government responding to the recent judicial review on the impact of assessment periods, and what can the Minister say to my constituent and others who are suffering like her?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady will be aware that I cannot comment on an individual case. I am sure that if she raises her constituent’s case with the Department, she will get a response. As I said earlier, this system is a huge transformational project, and we must learn as we go along. It is designed to mirror the way in which people in work are paid. There are advances available for anybody who is waiting for their universal credit payment.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Nigel Adams)
I have not discussed this matter with the Welsh Government. Decisions on charges are entirely for the Welsh Government to make, as this is a devolved responsibility.
Robert Halfon
The brain injury charity Headway has supported families who have incurred hospital car parking charges of as much as £248 in just seven days. Given that all hospitals in Wales have now abolished hospital car parking charges, will my hon. Friend make representations to the Health Secretary on abolishing them in England too?
Nigel Adams
It is clear—everybody in the House will know—that there is no stronger champion of such causes than my right hon. Friend. We allow individual hospitals to take their own decisions in England, assisted by clear guidance. There are potential additional costs of a blanket removal of charging, which could be significant, but we keep our ears open.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
When the Welsh Government abolished car parking charges, certain people thought that it was a waste of money. We now know that it has been a great success. Is it not time that the UK Government stopped denigrating the Welsh Government, talked to them a bit more and shared good ideas?
Nigel Adams
We are certainly not in the business of denigrating the Welsh Government, as the hon. Lady should know, but we cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach. I have read in the Welsh press in the past few weeks that some free hospital car parks are being used incorrectly by shoppers. We have to be mindful, but I assure her that we are not denigrating anyone.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I counsel the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) that this is not a silver bullet to hospital transport issues. In Wrexham Maelor Hospital, car parking is a major issue. The focus should be on providing public transport solutions in public services, and in hospitals in particular.
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is not a silver bullet. Without the correct levels of public transport, the wider solution cannot be delivered. I totally agree with him.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
The Government’s analysis shows that the deal the Government have negotiated is the best deal available for Welsh jobs and the Welsh economy. That allows us to honour the referendum and realise the new opportunities Brexit will bring.
Patrick Grady
But nobody in Wales voted for Brexit to make them poorer. Perhaps that is why the Welsh Assembly voted to reject the withdrawal agreement last night, as the Scottish Parliament will do this evening. The Minister’s Scottish colleagues are going around saying that the vote is needless. Does that not simply demonstrate the contempt that the Government and the Tories have always had for the devolution settlement? They are using Brexit to further undermine devolution.
Alun Cairns
I remind the hon. Gentleman that Wales voted to leave the European Union and that we have an obligation to respond to the demand that came from the referendum. We will continue to work with the Welsh Government in seeking a legislative consent motion to the withdrawal agreement Bill when it goes through Parliament. That is exactly what we gained having worked with them closely in relation to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I look forward to continuing to working with them on the Bill.
Tommy Sheppard
Manufacturers and producers in Wales currently have tariff-free access to the Europe single market of more than 500 million people. The market provides the destination for two thirds of all Welsh exports. Will the Minister explain to me and the House how ripping Wales out of the customs union and the single market will improve prospects for those Welsh businesses?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the deal my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has negotiated gives the opportunity of tariff-free access with the European Union. It also gives us the opportunity to strike independent trade deals right around the world as an independent trading nation. I am optimistic about our prospects outside the European Union. I wish that optimism was shared elsewhere.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Alun Cairns
Last week, I spoke to the Welsh Automotive Forum annual dinner. The sector represents 18,000 employees in manufacturing in Wales. It was strongly supportive of the deal that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has negotiated. I wish the hon. Gentleman would appreciate it too.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says he is optimistic about Wales’s future after Brexit, but can he confirm from the Dispatch Box that Wales is going to be poorer—our GDP will be smaller—if we vote for his deal next week?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman points to a range of economic scenarios that have been painted, but they do not take into account any response that the Government will make. Of course, a responsible Government will respond to the economic situation as it emerges. I am excited about the prospect of striking free trade deals right around the world as an independent trading nation once again.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister to his place. On 2 May, the Secretary of State told the House that
“we are keen to negotiate to allow for the most frictionless trade possible with the European Union.”—[Official Report, 2 May 2018; Vol. 640, c. 300.]
Why does the term “frictionless trade” not appear in the political declaration?
Alun Cairns
I kindly point the hon. Lady to the political declaration, which says “as frictionless as possible”. In my mind, that can include frictionless.
Christina Rees
That just is not good enough. The Secretary of State has given his backing to an agreement that does not even mention Wales, let alone protect workers’ rights, environmental standards, consumer protections or living standards. Is not the reality that this is a bad deal for Wales that fails to give Welsh people the certainty needed to safeguard jobs and livelihoods?
Alun Cairns
The deal that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has negotiated gives us the certainty of access to EU markets, but it also gives us new opportunities to strike trade deals around the world. I say to the hon. Lady that I am not sure what certainty a further referendum would bring, if that is her policy.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) is much preoccupied with the elegance of his tie, by which I am myself duly impressed, but if he wished to shoehorn in the concerns he had in respect of Question 15 now, he could legitimately do so.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend makes an important point. He allows me to point to the UK shared prosperity fund, which was a manifesto commitment. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will outline at the comprehensive spending review the sums of money that will be available, but I am determined to get a much more efficient system that is responsive to the demands and needs of the community. After all, £4 billion has been spent in Wales over the last 16 years and we have not always received the best value out of that. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a hell of a lot of noise in the Chamber. The House must hear Tom Pursglove.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
The Government have a host of policies to support businesses in Wales, from tax reductions to city deals and a modern UK industrial strategy. As a result, Wales continues to attract inward investment across all sectors.
Tom Pursglove
As we leave the European Union, we clearly need to promote all parts of the United Kingdom and their fantastic trade potential. How does the Secretary of State plan to harness Wales’s potential, building on the success of the “Great” campaign?
Alun Cairns
I pay tribute to what my hon. Friend does to promote businesses across the whole United Kingdom. He gives me an opportunity to highlight the fact that, in less than two weeks’ time, the tolls on the Severn crossing will be abolished for the first time in 52 years—a major boost to the economy of the south-west of England as well as south Wales.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman can legitimately shoehorn his concern about broadband into this inquiry. Go ahead.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Alun Cairns
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who is a strong campaigner in this area. We are determined to work closely both with him and with the Welsh Government to deliver the best broadband possible in the constituency of Ceredigion and in all other parts of Wales. Already, £69 million has been spent, in addition to the gainshare, but there is more that we can do, particularly in linking businesses with broadband. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a strong supporter of that campaign.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
May I, too, welcome the new Minister to the Wales Office, which is now attracting talent from across the whole of the United Kingdom? Does the Secretary of State agree that communications would be much improved if the Welsh Labour Government got on with building the M4 relief road?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I highlighted earlier the fact that in less than two weeks’ time the tolls on the Severn crossing will be abolished, but it is hard to believe that the former Member of Parliament for Richmond (Yorks) was the Secretary of State for Wales when the commitment was first made in relation to that road around Newport. The resource is available and the time has been available; I am only sorry that the Welsh Government have not reacted and built that road in response to those calls.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Business growth in north Wales is being choked off by congestion on the M56, on my side of the border. Will the Secretary of State sit down with the Transport Secretary to work out when it will be upgraded?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I regularly discuss those issues with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who has brought together a working group of officials and Ministers from all parts of the United Kingdom to discuss cross-border issues. I am only disappointed that the Welsh Government did not attend the last time we met.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Businesses across north Wales were delighted with the Chancellor’s Budget announcement of £120 million of funding for the north Wales growth deal. They are disappointed, however, that that announcement has not been followed by a similar announcement from the Welsh Assembly Government. Does my right hon. Friend know when such an announcement might be expected?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for highlighting that important policy. It is taking some time to negotiate the north Wales growth deal, but as he rightly points out, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced £120 million of funding in the Budget statement. We are working closely with the Welsh Government to encourage them to follow the same lines of commitment, and on Friday there will be further meetings to seek to crystallise that.
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to invite the House to join me in warmly welcoming to the Gallery a quite extraordinary, brave and courageous rape victim who has waived her anonymity in order to campaign not merely for her rights, very important though those rights are, but for the rights of all women similarly violated. I am referring of course to Sammy Woodhouse. Welcome to the House of Commons, Sammy. [Applause.]
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
May I first join you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House in commending Sammy Woodhouse? I think we all recognise, across this House, that for too long it has been difficult for rape victims to speak out. I hope that now, following her example, others will recognise that they will be heard and that proper action will be taken.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mr Dunne
May I, from the Back Benches, echo your comments, Mr Speaker, and those of the Prime Minister in respect of Sammy Woodhouse?
Does my right hon. Friend believe that today’s announcement of significant investment by the UK life sciences sector to work alongside the NHS, using genomics and artificial intelligence to help diagnose major diseases early, shows that world-class life sciences companies, such as Agilent in my constituency, will continue to invest in the UK to help the NHS improve patient outcomes post-Brexit?
The Prime Minister
That investment of £1 billion is indeed significant. It will deliver a state-of-the-art research and development facility in the UK and support 650 jobs. It is absolutely right to say that that shows the opportunities available to the UK post-Brexit. It also shows the advantage of our industrial strategy, with AI right at the heart of it, recognising the importance of AI in the health sector in the future. This is a very significant investment. It will support jobs and other employment in the UK, and it will support our economy in the future.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I join you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister in welcoming Sammy Woodhouse to Parliament today. It is an act typical of your generosity to refer to her presence in the Gallery today, so that others may be emboldened to deal with the horrors of the rape crisis we face.
I also express our sympathies to the family of Luke Griffin from Merseyside, who was killed in Kabul last week alongside five fellow G4S workers who were Afghan nationals. Luke had previously served in 16th Regiment, Royal Artillery.
While we debate the critical issue of Brexit, we must not neglect the crisis facing millions of people across our country. Last week, I wrote to the Prime Minister about the scathing report by the UN special rapporteur on this Government’s brutal policies towards the poorest in Britain. As of now, I have received no reply from the Prime Minister. When she read the report, what shocked her more: the words the UN used, or the shocking reality of rising poverty in Britain?
The Prime Minister
We have been clear, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has been clear, that we do not agree with the report— [Interruption.] No, we do not agree with this report. What we actually see in our country today is absolute poverty at record lows, more people in work than ever before, youth unemployment almost halved and wages growing, and that is because of the balanced approach that we take to our economy—a Conservative Government delivering for the British people.
Jeremy Corbyn
It could be that the Prime Minister does not agree with the report because it contains an unpalatable truth. The new Work and Pensions Secretary seems to have taken lessons from her and created a hostile environment for those who are claiming benefits. One of the Government’s policies which is causing the greatest anxiety and poverty is universal credit. The UN rapporteur, Professor Alston, said it was
“fast falling into universal discredit”.
When will the Prime Minister demonstrate some of her professed concern about burning injustices and halt the roll-out of universal credit?
The Prime Minister
We have exchanged on this issue of universal credit before—[Interruption.] Oh, the shadow Foreign Secretary, from a sedentary position, says that we have not done anything about it. What we have done is made changes as we have rolled out universal credit, but I am afraid we had a Labour party that would not support the changes we were making to universal credit. We have listened and we have made changes. It is time that the Labour party recognised that universal credit is ensuring that more people are in work in this country and that absolute poverty is at record lows. That is a system that delivers for people and encourages them into work—a simpler system that is better for the people who need to use it.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister might care to cast her eyes over the report from the Trussell Trust, which said that
“the only way to prevent even more people being forced to foodbanks this winter is to pause all new claims to Universal Credit.”
The UN also called for the five-week wait to be scrapped. In the coming weeks, universal credit is being rolled out in Anglesey, Blackpool, Milton Keynes and parts of Liverpool, London and Glasgow. There is a risk that people will be left with no money at Christmas. If the Prime Minister will not halt the roll-out of universal credit, will she at least immediately end the five-week wait?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman does not quite seem to understand how the system actually operates. No one has to wait for money if they need it. We have made advances—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We are less than a third of the way through and already there is too much noise on both sides of the House. Members must calm themselves. The questions will be heard, however long it takes, and the same is true of the replies. Please try to get used to that.
The Prime Minister
No one needs to wait for their money if they need it. We have made it easier for people to get advances. We have ensured they can get 100% of their first month’s payment up front. We have already scrapped the seven-day waiting period. I repeat: what happened when we scrapped the seven-day waiting period? Labour voted against it.
Jeremy Corbyn
It is a loan that is offered for some people.
The Trussell Trust has also pointed out that food banks face record demand this December. I gently say to the Prime Minister and the Members behind her: food banks are not just a photo opportunity for Conservative MPs, all of whom supported the cuts in benefit that have led to the poverty in this country.
Yesterday, research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found “in-work poverty is rising” faster than the overall employment rate due to chronic low pay and insecure work. The United Kingdom has the weakest wage growth of all G20 nations. Living standards have fallen for the majority of people. What is so wrong with our economy that our pay growth is so much worse than in each of the other nations in the G20?
The Prime Minister
We now see wages growing faster than they have for nearly a decade. We see employment at record levels. The right hon. Gentleman talks about scrapping universal credit, but what he wants to do is to go back to square one. That means going back to a system that left 1.4 million people spending most of a decade trapped on benefits. It left people paying an effective tax rate of 90%, and it cost every household an extra £3,000 a year. As ever with Labour, it was ordinary working people who paid the price.
Jeremy Corbyn
The chief economist of the Bank of England describes the last decade as a “lost decade” for wages. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister might laugh at this, but it is the reality of people’s lives; it is the reality—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I appeal to Members making too much noise to stop doing so. [Interruption.] Order. I very gently say to the junior Minister on the Back Bench, who is making far too much noise, that he is ordinarily a good-natured and genial chap—I am referring to the hon. Member for Hexham. Mr Opperman, you can do so much better; try to be a well-behaved citizen today. [Interruption.] Well, possibly like some others, but there are quite a lot of badly behaved people. Try to set a better example, Mr Opperman—you are a Minister of the Crown.
Jeremy Corbyn
Two years ago, a United Nations committee found this Government’s policies towards disabled people represented
“a grave and systematic violation”
of their rights. Does the Prime Minister think that situation has improved in the past two years?
The Prime Minister
First, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s latter point, it is this Government that have a key commitment in relation to helping disabled people get into the workplace. There are too many disabled people who have felt that they have not been able to do what they want to do—actually getting into the workplace and earning an income for themselves and their families. It is this Government who are helping. The Disability Confident arrangements that the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions put in place are doing exactly that.
However, the right hon. Gentleman started off his comments by referencing the last decade. Yes, the last decade has meant that difficult decisions have had to be taken, but why did those difficult decisions have to be taken? They were taken because of the Labour party’s mismanagement of the economy. Remember, remember the letter from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne): under Labour, there is no money left.
Jeremy Corbyn
When I hear a Prime Minister talking about difficult decisions, what always happens afterwards, in these contexts, is that the poorest in our society lose out. Some 4.3 million disabled people are now in poverty; 50,000 were hit by appalling cuts to the employment and support allowance benefit alone last year. This Government labelled disabled people as “scroungers” and called those unable to work “skivers”—[Hon. Members: “Withdraw!”]
Mr Speaker
Order. Calm—[Interruption.] Order. I do not need any advice from the Home Secretary. He should seek to discharge his own obligations in his office to the best of his ability; I require no advice from the right hon. Gentleman on the discharge of mine. Be clear about that.
Jeremy Corbyn
This Government also created a hostile environment for the Windrush generation. When the UN rapporteur said:
“British compassion for those who are suffering has been replaced by a punitive, mean-spirited, and…callous approach”,
he could not have summed up this contemptible Government any better. Child poverty is rising; homelessness—rising; destitution—rising; household debt—rising. When will the Prime Minister turn her warm words into action, end the benefit freeze, repeal the bedroom tax, scrap the two-child cap and halt the roll-out of universal credit?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the poorest losing out. I will tell him when the poorest lose out: it is when a Labour Government come in. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The finger pointing, yelling and braying must stop. I understand that passions are running high, but on both sides of the House we need some sense of decorum.
The Prime Minister
When the poorest lose out, it is when a Labour Government come in. What have this Government done? We have introduced the national living wage—Conservatives, not Labour. We have taken millions of people out of paying tax altogether—Conservatives, not Labour. Under this Government, 3.3 million jobs have been created.
Every Labour Government leave office with unemployment higher than when they went into office. What do we see under this Government? Our economy is growing, employment is rising, investment is up, we are giving the NHS the biggest single cash boost in its history, taxes are being cut and wages are rising. Labour would destroy all that. It is this Conservative Government who are building a brighter future for our country.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising what is an important point. We do recognise that we need to do more to encourage women to undertake cervical screening tests. In October, we announced a package of measures that will be rolled out across the country, which has the aim of seeing three quarters of all cancers detected at an early stage by 2028. That will see a radical overhaul of the screening programmes, and they will be made more accessible and easier to use.
But I just want to give this very simple message, and I am able to do so standing at this Dispatch Box: smear tests are not nice. All those of us who have had smear tests recognise that they are not nice. But they are important. If you want to see cancer detected early, have your smear test. A few minutes of discomfort could be saving your life.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your words of welcome to Sammy Woodhouse, a very brave woman who has done the right thing in waiving her anonymity? We must all call out crimes of sexual violence and those responsible must be held to account.
We were promised strong and stable. What we have is a Government in crisis: a Government that have lost two Brexit Secretaries, a Home Secretary, a Foreign Secretary, and a Work and Pensions Secretary; a Government that have suffered three consecutive defeats in just two hours, the first to do so in 40 years; and, now, a Government that have been found to be in contempt of Parliament. Is it not time that the Prime Minister took responsibility—the responsibility for concealing the facts on her Brexit deal from Members of this House and the public? Will she take responsibility?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong about that. We have not concealed the facts on the Brexit deal from Members of this House. He will see that the legal position set out on Monday in the 34-page document, together with the statement made and the answers given to questions by the Attorney General on Monday, clearly sets out the legal position.
Ian Blackford
That is an incredibly disappointing response from the Prime Minister. The facts have had to be dragged out of this Government by Parliament. This morning, we have seen the detail of the legal advice. We have seen the fact that the Government tried to hide—this Government are giving Northern Ireland permanent membership of the single market and the customs union. The legal advice is clear. It states:
“Despite statements in the Protocol that it is not intended to be permanent...in international law the Protocol would endure indefinitely”.
Since the Prime Minister returned from Brussels with her deal, the Prime Minister has been misleading the House, inadvertently or otherwise. The Prime Minister must explain—
Mr Speaker
Order. There can be no suggestion of “otherwise”. The right hon. Gentleman must make it clear that there is no suggestion that the Government are misleading the House deliberately. There can be no question of that. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to use the word “inadvertently”, which people do now and again, he can, but there must be no ambiguity on the point, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to clarify that—[Hon. Members: “Withdraw.”] Order. I do not need any advice from anyone. I know exactly what I am doing, and the right hon. Gentleman must comply.
Ian Blackford
Mr Speaker, I did use the word “inadvertently”, and I repeat it. Since the Prime Minister returned from Brussels with her deal, the Prime Minister has been misleading the house, perhaps inadvertently—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I always want the right hon. Gentleman to be heard fully, and he will be, but there can be no imputation of dishonour, and the insertion of the word “perhaps” suggests that the right hon. Gentleman wants to keep his options open. The option of imputing dishonour does not exist. That word must now be removed. Please rephrase, continue and complete—briefly.
Ian Blackford
Mr Speaker, I say again: “inadvertently”.
The Prime Minister must explain why she continues to deny Scotland the rights and opportunities that her deal offers to other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister
I think what the right hon. Gentleman will see if he makes a careful analysis of the statement that the Attorney General made, of his answers to questions and of the legal opinion that was set out by the Government—in many ways, it was unprecedented that the Government published such a 34-page document—is that the advice he is holding in his left hand has no difference from the statement given. Indeed, I might take up the personal challenge from the right hon. Gentleman, because I have said on the Floor of the House that there is no unilateral right to pull out of the backstop. I have also said that it is not the intention of either party for the backstop to be used in the first place or, if it is used, to be anything other than temporary.
The right hon. Gentleman finished by saying, once again, that he wishes to look to what Scotland should have from the deal. We are leaving the European Union as the whole United Kingdom, and we will negotiate as the whole United Kingdom. For Scotland, remaining in the internal market of the United Kingdom is the most important economic interest, and it is in the interests of Scotland to come out of the common fisheries policy. That is in our deal and our policy, and not in his.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I absolutely recognise the concern raised by my hon. Friend, and people are often concerned when they see proposals for development in their areas. However, we need to build the homes that the country needs, so that everyone can afford a decent, safe place to call their own, and we must help more people on to the housing ladder. Young people today worry that they will not be able to get on the housing ladder, and I am sure my hon. Friend shares my determination to ensure that they are able to do so. I am pleased that in the past year we have delivered more than 222,000 new homes—the highest level in all but one of the past 31 years—and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his local issue further.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
What the analysis actually shows is that outside the European Union, the best deal available in relation to our economy, and which delivers on leaving the European Union, is the deal on the table—the deal I have negotiated with the European Union. When people voted to leave the European Union, one issue they voted on was bringing an end to free movement once and for all, and that is what the Government will deliver.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We are all concerned about rough sleepers, but as he says, it is finding the solutions and ways through that is important. I commend him for his excellent work in campaigning on the issues of homelessness, rough sleeping and social impact bonds, and I congratulate P3 and CCP in Cheltenham. The rough sleeping social impact bond, which is designed to support individuals who have spent a long time within the homelessness system, and to reduce rough sleeping in the long term by helping people to access the support and services they need, is an important step forward. I congratulate those organisations on the work they have done in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the arrangements we have in place for the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, it is clear that we will not be in the single market and we will not be in the customs union, and we will continue to work for frictionless trade at the border. What we will have is an ambitious trade agreement unlike any that has been given to any other advanced economy—the most ambitious trade agreement that any advanced economy has with the European Union. That is good for this country, and good for jobs in his constituency.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I think the number of people marrying in England and Wales at 16 or 17 is very small, and actually continues to decline. We have not seen any evidence of failings in the existing protections for people marrying in England and Wales at 16 to 18 with the appropriate consents, but we continue to keep this under review. My noble Friend Baroness Williams said back in September that we will look at whether there is any link between parents giving consent when girls are aged 16 or 17 and instances of forced marriage; that may be one of the concerns behind the point that my hon. Friend makes. We will specifically look at that issue.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Lady knows of incidents when people in her region have been able to trust the Tories. [Interruption.] She knows. Let us look at the explosion in New Ferry. It was clearly devastating. It clearly impacted both residents and businesses, and I did, as she said, make a commitment to look at it. I will look at the letter that she received from the Secretary of State, because my understanding was that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government was encouraging Wirral Council to apply to a range of funding streams for various sums of money that would have been available, and that it asked Homes England to work with the council on its regeneration plans and had made money available in response to that. However, I will certainly look at the letter to which she refers.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I rise from the naughty corner, so I might need your protection, Mr Speaker.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her determined campaigning in the area of mental health, both as Home Secretary and now as Prime Minister. Will she join me in congratulating Sir Simon Wessely, who has just done a review of the Mental Health Act 1983? His findings will be published tomorrow. Sir Simon conducted the review with great good humour, compassion and dignity. Even though this House is so divided on so many issues, it should be united on this report.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Mental health, and how we look at the Mental Health Act, is an important issue that I hope will unite people across the House in recognition that we were right to have this review. I am certainly happy to congratulate Professor Sir Simon Wessely on the work that he has done. He has engaged with a wide range and large number of service users and their families, as well as health organisations and professionals, to help shape his recommendations. I certainly look forward to reading them. We obviously commit as a Government to coming forward with legislation in due course. This is an important area. We should all get behind this, because we need to ensure that we are delivering for those people in our country who suffer from mental health problems.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the Government’s decision. This is an exciting opportunity for the United Kingdom to take a leading role in the new commercial space age. He has referenced the new spaceport and the ambition we have for it. I understand that, following a report by the local crofters association, Highlands and Islands Enterprise is moving ahead with its plans, which could create 40 skilled jobs locally in spaceport construction and operation. I recognise the importance of the skilled jobs he is talking about locally. This is a real opportunity for his constituency, but it is also an opportunity for the UK to be at the leading edge of this technology.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The motion relating to the Attorney General that was passed yesterday related to the whole agreement, not just to the question to which the letter that has now been published relates, which is exclusively the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland. Given that the ministerial code states:
“The Law Officers must be consulted in good time before the Government is committed to critical decisions involving legal considerations”,
and that the Attorney General has stated that the international agreement is binding on the United Kingdom and the EU, why have we not had an opinion on matters such as the control over laws, European Court of Justice jurisdiction and the incompatibility of the agreement with the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972—matters that are of seminal importance in deciding this question?
The Prime Minister
I suggest that my hon. Friend looks at the remarks that were made in the Chamber yesterday following the Government’s announcement that they would publish the final advice given by the Attorney General that was asked for.
My hon. Friend has referred again to the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. As I have said in answer to him on more than one occasion in this Chamber and in the Liaison Committee, it was always clear during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which did indeed repeal the 1972 Act and bring the EU acquis—EU law—into UK law, that in the event that there was an implementation period in which we were to operate much as we do today as a member of the European Union, it would be necessary to ensure that any necessary changes were made, and those changes will be made in the withdrawal agreement Bill, which will be brought before Parliament.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I understand that, in Home Office oral questions this week, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service undertook to get back to the hon. Lady. As he made clear this week, the authority’s core spending power has increased this year. I am also informed that the Tyne and Wear service holds £25 million of reserves, which is equivalent to 52% of its core spending power.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
In Cumbria, we have endured 42 days of rail strike action, despite the Transport Secretary’s assurance that the guards on the Cumbrian coastal line will remain. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister condemn the actions of the RMT, which have left vulnerable people without public transport and businesses suffering in the run-up to Christmas?
The Prime Minister
I do indeed condemn the action that has been taken by the RMT, which as my hon. Friend says is leading to people and businesses suffering. We call on the RMT to end the strikes. The jobs have been guaranteed beyond this franchise. There is no reason to continue this needless action. The message is very clear: “Stop the strikes, get round the table and put passengers first.”
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Every child deserves the right education for them. We are working to drive up quality for children with special educational needs and for those with disabilities. We have taken several steps, such as introducing a new inspections framework and focusing more on a local area’s strengths and weaknesses, and we are working to spread best practice, but that is being dealt with better in some areas than in others. When used properly, EHC plans do ensure that support is tailored to the needs of children and that families are put at the heart of the process, and more money is going in this year for children with special educational needs. However, I recognise that parents of children with special educational needs often feel that they constantly have to beat their heads against the bureaucracy that they come up against to ensure that they get the right support for their children. We are committed to ensuring that we are delivering for children and that we are delivering quality education that is right for children with special educational needs.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I know how much the Prime Minister likes to get out on to the doorsteps of her constituency whenever she is able to, as I like to in mine. Does she, like me, find that people are raising the issue of potholes on a regular basis, and does she, like me, welcome the fact that we are spending £6.7 million—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. This happens in my constituency as well. I want to hear about the pothole situation in Redditch and elsewhere.
Rachel Maclean
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The roads in Redditch are excellent on the whole, but we are pleased that Worcestershire was awarded £6.7 million of funding in the recent Budget. How quickly does the Prime Minister think that that money will be spent on fixing our roads?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Potholes, local services and other issues that matter to people on a day-to-day basis are issues that are raised on the doorstep. My understanding is that the money is available and should be being spent now.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
Both the UK Government and, actually, the European Commission felt that it was right that the issue be tested. We will not revoke article 50. That is clear. The Government will not revoke article 50. Everyone in the House needs to understand what the judgment of the advocate general means. If experience is anything to go by, the Court will go with it, but it still has not come to its final decision. However, if the determination of the advocate general goes ahead, it says that it is possible for a country unilaterally to revoke article 50, but that is not about extending article 50—it is about making sure that we do not leave the European Union. That is what that judgment is about. We will not revoke article 50. The British people voted to leave the European Union and we will be leaving.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
A number of Members of this House and members of the public are still concerned that we may risk being in an extended, if not permanent, backstop situation or customs territory. Can my right hon. Friend explain why, in her opinion, the European Union will not want that to exist and why it will negotiate in good faith for an extensive free trade agreement?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I recognise that there are concerns about the backstop but, for a number of reasons, it is indeed the case that it is not attractive for the European Union to have the United Kingdom in the backstop. First, in that backstop, we will be making no financial obligation to the European Union, we will not be accepting free movement and there will be very light touch level playing field requirements. These are matters that mean that the European Union does not see this as an attractive place for it to put the UK. The EU thinks that is an attractive place for the UK to be in and it will not want us to be in it for any longer than is necessary.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
That will indeed be replaced by the shared prosperity fund, which will look at ensuring that we deal with the disparities that exist between communities and between nations. The Government will be consulting before the end of the year.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Next week will be the first opportunity for MPs to vote on the withdrawal agreement, and I was glad to have the opportunity to speak in the debate last night. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House and my constituents that, should the withdrawal agreement not secure the support of Parliament, Her Majesty’s Government will seek early dialogue with negotiators in Brussels to seek to address the genuine concerns of MPs on both sides of the House?
The Prime Minister
I believe that the deal we have negotiated is a good deal. I recognise that concerns have been raised, particularly around the backstop. As I said yesterday in my speech during the debate, I am continuing to listen to colleagues on that, and I am considering the way forward.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am very sorry to hear of the case in relation to the pension of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and the actions of that financial adviser. I will ensure that the Treasury looks at this issue and these sorts of cases with the Financial Conduct Authority.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Our country’s children are our country’s future. Yesterday, Ofsted reported that 95% of early years providers are now rated good or outstanding, up from 74% six years ago. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking all those who work in early years organisations for giving our children the very best start in life?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that early years education is important. It is important for children to give them that good start in life, and it is to be welcomed and applauded that 95% of those providers are now rated good or outstanding. We should thank all those who work in early years provision for the excellent work they are doing for our children and their future.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Prime Minister
This is not a negotiating ploy by the European Union against the UK. It is our commitment, as a UK Government, to the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman says that the political assertion that there will be no hard border is sufficient to give people reassurance for the future. I say no. What people want to know is that arrangements will be in place. It does not have to be the backstop. The future relationship will deal with this. The extension of the implementation period could deal with the temporary period. Alternative arrangements could deal with it. But people need to know it is beyond a political assertion that there is that commitment there to the people of Northern Ireland to ensure that we have no hard border.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Yesterday, London students heard from the renowned holocaust survivor Hannah Lewis, who described the horrors of Europe’s darkest hour. As we celebrate the festival of Hanukkah, does my right hon. Friend agree that there could be no better place for the national holocaust memorial and learning centre than alongside this Palace of Westminster, to stand as a permanent memorial to the horrors of the ultimate of antisemitism?
The Prime Minister
I commend Hannah for the contribution she is making and has made over the years in bringing home to people the absolute horrors of the holocaust. I commend the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust, which does important work up and down our country. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that there is no better place for the holocaust memorial and learning centre to be than right next to our Parliament. What is important is that this is not just a memorial; it is a learning centre and it will be educating young people and others about the horrors of man’s inhumanity to man.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I, too, would like to take the opportunity to express my respect to Sammy Woodhouse for her courage. Yesterday, the National Assembly for Wales became the first Parliament on the British Isles to reject the Prime Minister’s deal and clearly it will not be the last. Wales has seen through how she is intent on inflicting GBH—her Government’s Brexit harm—on our nation. Beset on all sides, will she come to her senses and rule out a no-deal scenario before this House forces her to do so?
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Lady is concerned about the possible effects of a no-deal scenario, the only way to ensure that there is not a no-deal scenario is to accept a deal scenario and accept the deal that is on the table.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Prime Minister, the legal witch hunting of military veterans, which I have been raising with you for about a year now, is getting worse. The latest victim is David Griffin, a 77-year-old former Royal Marine who is being reinvestigated for an incident that took place in Northern Ireland 45 years ago, on which he was thoroughly cleared at the time. They knew where to find him, because he is an in-pensioner at the Royal Hospital Chelsea. How is it that we live in a country where alleged IRA terrorists are given letters of comfort and we go after Chelsea Pensioners instead? Prime Minister, this nonsense must stop. Please, please, do something about it.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend raises a particular case, which will have touched everybody across this House. He also raises the contrast between the treatment of veterans and the treatment of terrorists. About 3,500 people were killed in the troubles, 90% of whom were murdered by terrorists, and many of these cases require further investigations, including the deaths of hundreds of members of the security forces. We have committed to establishing new mechanisms for dealing with this, in a balanced and proportionate way. We are concerned that at the moment we see a situation where there has been a disproportionate emphasis on those who were serving military or police officers at the time. I want to ensure that the terrorists are investigated, and we continue to look at this question. We have consulted on it and we will be responding to that consultation. I recognise the strength of feeling from my right hon. Friend and others about this issue and the Government will be responding in due course.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I know the whole House is inspired by the bravery of Sammy Woodhouse in speaking out so that we can drive real change, and is horrified by the news that the man who raped Sammy and is serving a 35-year prison sentence was encouraged to seek access to her child through the family courts. Does the Prime Minister agree that no man who has fathered a child through rape should have parental rights? Will she seek to amend the legislation, through the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill when it comes back to this House, so that men who have fathered children through rape cannot weaponise the courts to access children and re-traumatise their victims all?
The Prime Minister
This is obviously a very distressing case and I am sure that, as we have just heard, the concerns of the whole House rest with Sammy Woodhouse and with what has happened in this case. As the facts have been reported, I am sure we all consider it extraordinary that this should have happened in the first place. What is important is that the Ministry of Justice and other Departments are urgently looking at and working with local authorities on the issues raised in this case to ensure that there is a process in place in future that does protect children and mothers from harm. I understand that the hon. Lady has met the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), and I urge her to continue engaging with the MOJ on this very important issue.
Petition
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The petition has been supported, online and on paper, by more than 1,000 of my constituents. It calls for more funding for Avon and Somerset police force. In the past four years, recorded crime in the Avon and Somerset police area has risen by 40%, with violent crime rising by a shocking 75%, but the number of charges being brought has fallen. The petition states:
The petition of constituents of Bristol East constituency,
Declares that Avon and Somerset Police have already had to make £65 million of cuts since 2010, with the loss of nearly 700 front line police officers; and further that The Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable have now warned in their report “The Tipping Point” that the force cannot sustain any further cuts- as proposed by the Government—without extremely serious consequences.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to give Avon and Somerset Police the resources they need to police our streets, prevent crime and protect the public.
And the petitioners remain etc.
[P002302]
Point of Order
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When you quite properly point out a citizen of this country who has done a remarkably courageous thing, as Sammy Woodhouse has done, we all want to support her and to applaud. The only reason why there was no applause from Members on these Benches—there was applause from people in the Public Gallery—was because of the conventions of this House. May I suggest that we really do need to sort this out? I say that because this was not a sign of disrespect or of a lack of support here; it was merely the convention. That needs to be recorded and as a House we need to sort this out.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order. I had not known that that was what she was intending to raise—I could not have done, because, whatever other merits I may have, I am not psychic. But I do now know what she has in mind and my response is to say that I have sought to exhibit flexibility in this matter. In other words, when it is obviously a spontaneous reaction in the House, particularly one of a non-partisan character, the Chair is very much inclined to be accommodating of that. When a political party engages in what might be called orchestrated clapping, in defiance of the convention of the House and really in celebration of a party point, that is inappropriate and the Chair deprecates it. I think it would have been different in this situation. This Speaker has not exactly been a slave to convention, as I think the right hon. Lady will agree. All sorts of conventions have been adjusted, and situations evolve in accordance with changing mores in this House, and this Speaker would seek to be flexible. She has registered the fact that Members on the Government Benches wish to extend a very warm welcome to Sammy Woodhouse, as did people on the Opposition Benches. As far as I can tell, that feeling was universally exhibited across the House.
Immigration (Time Limit on Detention)
Wednesday 5th December 2018
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Immigration (Time Limit on Detention) Bill 2017-19 View all Immigration (Time Limit on Detention) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a maximum period of detention under the Immigration Act 1971 of 28 days; and for connected purposes.
I realise that I have chosen to introduce my first ten-minute rule Bill in a very quiet week in Parliament, but I hope that colleagues from across the House will indulge me as I speak about a campaign that I am very passionate about and which is close to my heart. I am proud to be an MP for a constituency that has a proud history of welcoming immigrants. My constituency has a long history of welcoming economic migrants from Ireland and refugees fleeing political persecution in Nazi Germany. At this moment in time, my constituency has 22,000 European Union nationals, who form the very fabric of our community. I am proud that both the councils in my constituency recently welcomed refugees from Syria and Somalia. My mother came here as a political asylum seeker in the 1970s and settled in the very constituency I am now proud to represent here in Westminster.
I am sure Members from all parties will agree that we are proud of the fact that Britain is a safe haven for people who cannot go back to their country of origin. The practice in our country of indefinitely detaining people, however, blights the nation, and we should all be ashamed of it. We are the only country in the EU—and one of only a few in the world—that indefinitely detains people. Immigration officers go around in the middle of the night capturing people and putting them in prison-like cells. Many Members from all parties will have visited these detention centres and will know the conditions in which these people are kept.
In this country, we have legislation that limits how long terror suspects and criminal suspects can be detained. Terror suspects can be detained without charge for 14 days and criminal suspects can be detained without charge for 28 days, but we do not afford that same protection to refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants. That should put us to shame. The people who are detained range from nurses to doctors to teachers to students. Some of them have no previous criminal convictions and have come here to seek economic opportunity. Some of them are former offenders who have served their term and come here to make a life for themselves anew. They are people who have come here because they have gone through insufferable trauma in their country of origin and this is a safe haven for them. Many are men, some are women and some are children, but above all they are human. Detaining them indefinitely is a blight on their human right to freedom.
Members from Government and Opposition parties who have been to detention centres will know what they are like. People are ripped away from their families in the middle of the night and put in bare cells, with no recourse to legal advice so that they can know when they are going to come out. Unfortunately, cases of abuse and neglect are commonplace. When the Red Cross interviewed some of these detainees and asked them what was the very worst thing about being detained, Emmanuel said that it was not knowing when he was going to be released. The thought that there was no limit on how long he was going to be in that cell caused such mental trauma and mental health problems. A similar detainee talked to the Red Cross about how she could see no light at the end of the tunnel because she knew that her situation could go on forever. That should shame us all.
Being in indefinite detention leads to problems with mental health. There have been 600 cases in which people have needed medical assistance and treatment because they have suffered and gone on to self-harm. Indefinite detention has led to an epidemic of suicide and self-harm throughout our detention centres. It has reached the point at which, when Amnesty and the Red Cross interviewed people, nearly all of them had witnessed some form of suicide, self-harm or desperation, having been stuck in those cells for so long.
For me, the worst thing is that people are not detained for reasons of criminal justice but because of an inefficient administrative process that insiders themselves have admitted could be sped up and take only weeks, rather than months. That should make us even more embarrassed. The Home Office guidance says that people should be detained for a reasonable amount of time. Does the House think it is reasonable to detain someone for more than two years, as happens regularly? One fifth of detainees spend more than two months at a time in cells. At what point does that become reasonable or unreasonable?
When we have discussed whether we should have a 28-day limit, a lot of people have objected. For those who object and are not convinced by my arguments about detention being cruel or inhumane, let us think about the cost and how inefficient the system is. Currently, the system is wholly inefficient and hugely costly. The House should reflect on these figures: it costs £86 a day to detain someone and £34,000 a year for everyone who is currently detained. Matrix Evidence found that the if we imposed a time limit and got people out when they were meant to be out, we would save £344 million over five years. So those Members who are not convinced by the emotional argument should think about the money that could be saved if we had a proper time limit on detention.
Furthermore, the existing policy seems to be to detain first and ask questions later. Perhaps if there was a time limit, the immigration officers who go around could ask the questions, handle things more sensitively and detain later. A time limit might also curb the cruel practice of mistaken detention, which happened to two people from the Windrush generation last year.
The Home Secretary has said that a 28-day limit on detention is based on slogans rather than evidence. It is not based on slogans; it is a cry that has come from report after report, committee after committee and investigation after investigation. The all-party group on refugees has called for it, Select Committees have called for it, and experts in the UN, EU and international non-governmental organisations have called for it. My Bill is backed by Liberty and Amnesty.
When I put forward my Bill, I approached some unlikely names from the Government Benches and was impressed by how quickly people came back to me to say that they wanted to support it. For the past few months, we have had huge division in the House, but I was inspired and reassured by the fact that ultimately we are all here because we want to make society a better place. We want a more equal society in which the most vulnerable are protected.
We have to think about the history of our country. Some 800 years ago, in a field in Runnymede, the Magna Carta laid out our basic civil liberties. It set out how people should not be imprisoned without due process and a fair trial. The criminal system in this country now is not perfect, but it serves us well. However, there is one part of our legislation and criminal justice system—in society and generally in Parliament—where we have failed. We have absolutely failed to protect the most vulnerable because we allow them to be detained without any hope, without any reason and without a light at the end of the tunnel. I say to the Home Secretary: there is no time for a review—we have been there and done the reviews. This is about life and death, and we need to act now, so I implore Members from all parties, who have really indulged me by listening to my very long speech: please get together and support me—I ask for your support, too, Mr Speaker—to make sure that we end the indefinite detention of the most vulnerable in society.
Mr Speaker
Far be it from me to argue, but the hon. Lady has not made a long speech; she has made a speech absolutely within her rights and in conformity with the title. The clue is in the title: it is called a ten-minute rule motion. She was within her time.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tulip Siddiq, Mr David Davis, Mr Dominic Grieve, Dame Caroline Spelman, Mr Andrew Mitchell, Paul Blomfield, Lisa Nandy, Layla Moran, Rushanara Ali, Christine Jardine, Mr David Lammy and Stella Creasy present the Bill.
Tulip Siddiq accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019, and to be printed (Bill 302).
European Union (Withdrawal) Act
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Just before I ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to open the continuation of the debate on behalf of the Government, I feel that it is important that Members are aware of the correct protocol for today and for each of the remaining subsequent days in this overarching debate on the Government’s proposed deal.
It is true that it is a debate essentially revolving around one subject. However, I should remind colleagues that there are wind-up speeches each day from the Opposition and Treasury Benches, and the implication of that should be blindingly obvious to colleagues: if you speak in the debate it is incumbent on you to turn up at whatever hour the debate is concluded to hear the wind-up speeches. Yesterday, I am sorry to say, there were a number of examples of Members who spoke, in some cases at considerable length, in the debate, but who, on account no doubt of being very busy with many commitments and very full diaries, felt that they had to be elsewhere for the wind-up speeches. I know and I think that it may well be widely accepted that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition did not come for the wind-up of the debate, and, personally, I take no exception to that at all—it would have been marvellous to welcome them, but I quite understand why they could not be here—but in every other case, if you speak in the debate, please then do me the courtesy, or do the House the courtesy, of turning up for the wind-ups. With that little homily duly completed, I invite the Secretary of State for the Home Department to continue the debate.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
It is a great pleasure for me to open this debate. I cannot think of a better way to celebrate my 49th birthday.
The coming weeks will be one of the most defining political periods not just of this Parliament or of our time as MPs, but since the second world war. I know that all hon. and right hon. Members will have the national interest at the very forefront of their minds. Next Tuesday, we will be asked whether we will support the Brexit deal of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Each one of us will have to make that decision. It is my belief that the deal on the table is the best option available in ensuring a smooth exit from the European Union. It will ensure that we leave the EU, as planned, on 29 March next year, that we take back control of our borders, that we end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK and that we stop sending vast sums of money to Brussels. The deal will have a significant impact on two major areas of Home Office policy—security and immigration.
Sajid Javid
I will very happily take an intervention from the right hon. Gentleman.
Nigel Dodds
I am very grateful to the Home Secretary. He has just mentioned taking back control and ending the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I presume that he has seen the legal advice, published today, from the Attorney General, which makes it clear that, in fact, that is not the case in terms of the backstop, which he also says is indefinite. The advice says:
“NI remains in the EU’s Customs Union”—
not in some kind of customs arrangement—
“and will apply the whole of the EU’s customs acquis, and the Commission and CJEU will continue to have jurisdiction over its compliance with those rules”.
Northern Ireland will treat Great Britain as a third country. How can he possibly stand here and recommend this deal and say that it brings to an end the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and takes back control?
Sajid Javid
I very much respect what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. He has shared it with the House on a few occasions, and I absolutely understand what he says. Let me just say from the outset: no one can pretend that this deal is perfect in every sense. Inevitably, there will be some compromises with this deal and with a number of objectives, including, as we have just heard from the Prime Minister in Prime Minister’s questions, a need to ensure that the commitments in the Good Friday agreement are upheld. What he is referring to is if—and it is an if—the backstop arrangement kicks in. He is right to point to the legal advice, but it is worth keeping in mind the fact that that situation does not necessarily arise, even if there is no final deal on the future arrangement by December 2020, because there is an opportunity for alternative arrangements, including extending the implementation period. Even if the backstop arrangement kicked in, he referred to, it is, at a minimum—legally from the European Union’s perspective—not sustainable because it is done under article 50 of the European Union’s own rules.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend not accept that, if we are maintaining an open border where there is a land border, it can only be done in a modern economy by having some form of customs union applying to both sides of the border? Unless and until someone else comes forward with an alternative way of timelessly guaranteeing an open border, the arrangement proposed is the only conceivable one that is possible for the foreseeable future, until something better comes along. This was quite obvious months ago, and it is quite futile to start protesting about it now.
Sajid Javid
I always listen carefully to what my right hon. and learned Friend has to say on all matters. It is correct that this is one way to ensure, in that all-important border, completely frictionless trade, but I do not accept that it is the only way to do that. Although it is recognised in the agreement, under the backstop arrangement, that this is a way that clearly has been foreseen by this agreement, there are, as I said a moment ago, potentially other ways that that can be achieved, and it is right that we properly explore all possible alternative arrangements.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Rather than listen to the advice of the Father of the House, will the Secretary of State listen to the advice of the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic, Mr Juncker and Michel Barnier in the EU and his own Government, all of whom have said that, in the event of a no deal or of any kind of deal, they would not impose a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, so, quite clearly, it must be possible to do this, despite the comments of the Father of the House.
Sajid Javid
What the right hon. Gentleman highlights is that it is important to listen to all voices. Again, it points to the fact that, although this is one arrangement, it is right that we look and continue to explore to see whether there are other arrangements that can lead to a more permanent and more easily acceptable outcome.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sajid Javid
I will give way one more time, but I do need to make some progress.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. The legal advice released this morning makes it clear that the protocol does not provide for a mechanism that is likely to enable the UK lawfully to exit the UK-wide customs union without a subsequent agreement. It goes on to say:
“This remains the case even if parties are still negotiating many years later, and if the parties believe that talks have clearly broken down and there is no prospect of a future relationship agreement.”
Does that not undermine the point that he made a moment ago when he argued that this arrangement was not sustainable in the long term because of the limitations of article 50? The advice of the Attorney General is that it is going to last.
Sajid Javid
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. No doubt he has had some time to digest the legal opinion, but he might also note that it is perfectly consistent with what the Attorney General said at this Dispatch Box earlier this week. He made it clear then that, naturally, what he is providing is legal analysis, but this should also been seen in the context of the politics of such a situation, and he set that out quite clearly as well on the day. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the remarks that the Attorney General made on that point earlier this week.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary confirm that if we approve the withdrawal agreement, the UK will have to pay a lot of money for many years after we have left the European Union, although there are no cash limits or numbers in the documents, and very general heads? Will he also confirm that the EU will have preponderant power in deciding just how vast this open-ended commitment will be, and that it will be massively more than £39 billion?
Sajid Javid
In the withdrawal agreement, there is an estimated amount that the UK will pay. It will not be instant; it is over a number of years. The general figure that has been talked of by Government Ministers and others is a total of £39 billion.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Sajid Javid
I will come back to the hon. and learned Lady in a moment.
The Home Office is affected by this deal in two significant areas: security and immigration. Today I will set out what is on offer in these two important areas and why the deal is in the interests of the United Kingdom. Let me start with security. The Brexit deal negotiated by the Prime Minister delivers the solid foundation that we need for future security co-operation with our European partners. It avoids a cliff edge by providing for an implementation period, ensuring a smooth transition from current arrangements to a new, strong partnership.
An unplanned no-deal Brexit would mean an immediate and probably indefinite loss of some security capability, which, despite our best efforts, would likely cause some operational disruption when we leave. As Home Secretary, I know which option I would prefer. I have seen at first hand how important it is to have a strong security partnership with our European allies. I have seen the potential dangers that such co-operation prevents, and the security and safety that it ensures.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
Of course, what the Home Secretary says about no deal is right, but the Chancellor has earned some respect for showing a level of candour this week by saying that there will be an economic trade-off with any form of Brexit. Will the Home Secretary be similarly open with the House and the public that there will be some form of security trade-off over Brexit in order to achieve the aims of the Brexiteers?
Sajid Javid
I point the hon. Gentleman to the assessment of the security arrangements in the deal that we published in quite some detail last week. I accept that, with this deal, security arrangements will inevitably be different because we will be a third country outside the EU, but I think we can safely say that it is the most comprehensive security agreement that the EU has with any third country.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Home Secretary has spent some time giving evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs recently on the subject of database access. Yesterday, the Prime Minister was questioned by a fellow member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), on the question of whether Schengen Information System II is included in the agreement. The Prime Minister stated that it is referred to in the political declaration, but paragraph 86 of the declaration only refers to passenger name record data and Prüm, not to SIS II, which is a vital database. Will the Home Secretary now put the House straight as to the exact situation with those databases?
Sajid Javid
I will happily do so, although I do not have the exact paragraph before me. In terms of the SIS II database, the document refers to the wanted and missing persons database. It also refers to another database—on European criminal records—in a similar vein. The declaration says that we will consider co-operation on those databases, but it does not guarantee that.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Could the Secretary of State point me to the pages in the document that he has published that give guarantees on our continued membership of Europol, Eurojust and the European arrest warrant? As a former Home Office Minister, I can tell him that they are critical to the safety of our citizens, but they are absent from the document.
Sajid Javid
The agreement clearly refers to the mutual exchange of data on passenger name records, DNA, fingerprints, vehicle registrations and fast-track for extradition—which I will cover later in my speech—as well as continued co-operation with Europol and Eurojust.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I just want the Home Secretary to clarify his answer. I cannot find any reference to SIS II anywhere in the political declaration. I am very happy to give him my copy if he does not have one with him. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is also a member of the Home Affairs Committee, said, paragraph 86 refers only to passenger name record data and the Prüm database. It does not refer to SIS II. Will he clarify for the House that there is no reference to SIS II in the declaration?
Sajid Javid
I thank the right hon. Lady for the focus that her Select Committee has brought to this issue, including recently. Just to be clear, there is no claim that the document itself refers to the database as SIS II or to the European Criminal Records Information System database, for that matter. The document talks about considering continued co-operation on the kind of information that is in those databases. We will properly consider the matters to see whether there is a way to continue that type of co-operation.
Sajid Javid
I will give way to the right hon. Lady one more time as she is the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Yvette Cooper
Paragraph 87 refers to considering further arrangements and arrangements that might
“approximate those enabled by relevant Union mechanisms.”
The SIS II database contains 76 million pieces of information. There is no sign that anybody is going to create another alternative database that contains just as much information, so what on earth does it mean to talk about approximating access to the SIS II database? Either we get access to it or we do not.
Sajid Javid
It means exactly what it says in paragraph 87, which is that we will “consider further arrangements” that will help the
“exchange of information on wanted or missing persons…and of criminal records”.
Give the right hon. Lady’s interest in these matters, she will be more aware than most Members of this House that we did not join this database until 2015. Before that, we were using other databases on wanted and missing persons, including the Interpol database, so there are other pieces of data that we can use for this type of information. However, it is good that we have an outcome whereby we will consider further co-operation on exactly this kind of important information.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
For all the concern that is being expressed by colleagues on both sides of the House, is the Home Secretary aware of a single Interior Minister or security agency chief around the whole EU who actually wants to reduce the level of co-operation that the UK currently has with the EU and the countries within it?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In all my discussions with Interior Ministers on security co-operation, I have not come across a single one who wants to reduce security co-operation. Every single one understands the mutual benefit that comes about through continued co-operation and information exchange.
The deal that the UK has reached with the EU will provide for the broadest and most comprehensive security relationship that the EU has ever had with another country. This agreement allows for our relationship to include various important areas of co-operation: continuing to work closely together on law enforcement and criminal justice; keeping people safe in the UK, across Europe and around the world through exchanging information on criminals and tackling terrorism; ensuring that we can investigate and prosecute those suspected of serious crime and terrorism; supporting international efforts to prevent money laundering and counter-terrorist financing; and combating new and evolving threats such as cyber-security. It also allows for joint working on wider security issues including asylum and illegal migration.
The declaration sets out that we should carry on sharing significant data and processes such as passenger name records, so that we can continue disrupting criminal networks involved in terrorism, serious crime and modern slavery; DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data, ensuring that law enforcement agencies can quickly investigate and prosecute criminals and terrorists; fast-track extradition to bring criminals to justice quickly where they have committed a crime; and continued co-operation with Europol and Eurojust.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The thing is that that is completely a wish list. It is all in the political declaration, but it is no more deliverable than a letter to Santa Claus—it really isn’t—because there is no settled policy on extradition, and no settled policy on a legal definition that could be delivered through the law courts on any of these elements. The proof of this is that the Government do not even have an immigration policy. It is all very well having a wish list, but how on earth could a serious Member of Parliament vote for nothing more than a wish list?
Sajid Javid
With regard to leaving the EU, the only wish list I am aware of that is worth nothing is Labour’s so-called six principles. That is the wish list that the hon. Gentleman has continually supported again and again. In this deal, specifically on security co-operation, there is, for example, an agreement on mutual exchange of data on passenger name records, DNA, fingerprints, vehicle registrations and fast-track extradition. He should go and explain to his constituents how important that is to them.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary confirm that if we are out of the European arrest warrant and unable to put any identical arrangement in place, a number of countries will be unable in future, under their own constitution, to extradite their nationals to this country?
Sajid Javid
We are not going to have an identical way of extradition in future because there is no need for an identical way. We will be outside the European Union, no longer a member, so it is not appropriate that we are members of exactly the current mechanism—the European arrest warrant. However, that does not mean that we cannot continue to co-operate through an agreement with the EU on fast and expeditious extradition procedures and fast-track extradition. That is in the agreement; it has been agreed.
Sajid Javid
No, I will not—I have to make some progress.
When it comes to external threats, we will be able to have an ambitious partnership on foreign policy, security and defence that will enable both sides to combine efforts for the greatest impact. It allows for ongoing co-operation on other important cross-cutting issues, including countering violent extremism and the spread of infectious diseases.
Of course, there is some further work to be done to ensure that we build on the foundation that this deal provides. This is not about wanting to stay close to the EU and its security arrangements just for the sake of it. We are leaving, and our relationship must change. This is about a hard-headed, pragmatic, evidence-based decision on what is the best security interest of the UK.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Home Secretary confirm that because we will not be participating in the PESCO—permanent structured co-operation—arrangements, we will have no seat in the room, no voice and no vote or veto within any of the foreign policy defence and security arrangements; we will not be in the European Defence Agency; and we will not, unless we have a special arrangement, be in the European Defence Fund? What is the point of that in terms of increasing our security?
Sajid Javid
I would say gently to the hon. Gentleman that of course when we have left the EU we will not be participating as direct members in those kinds of foreign security tools. We will have our own independent foreign and defence policy, and we will have the ability, if we choose, to align ourselves with the EU. He should also remember, and it is worth recalling in this House, that our security is underpinned across Europe by our membership of NATO, not membership of the European Union. Ultimately, I believe that this deal strikes the right balance on security, and we will keep Britain one of the safest countries in the world.
I turn now to the consequences for security of no deal. An unco-operative no deal would have an impact on protecting the public. There will be no implementation period smoothing our transition into these new arrangements. The UK would have to stop using EU security tools and data platforms from March next year. There will be unhelpful implications for our law enforcement agencies and border guards. There would be disruption and they would have less information available to do their jobs, including identifying and arresting people who could threaten the security of some of our citizens. They would have fewer options for pursuing criminals across borders as we would lose the ability to pool our efforts through Europol and Eurojust. It would take longer to track, arrest and bring to justice those who commit crimes internationally. I have established and I chair a weekly Cobra-style planning meeting within the Home Office to plan for this eventuality properly in case it comes about. But no matter how effectively we prepare for no deal, setting aside the capabilities we have developed with our EU partners will of course have some consequences.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been listening to the Home Secretary very intently. He has not really given me the assurance I want on Europol. Can I give him a last chance just to mention Galileo?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman says that he has been listening very carefully. I doubt that, because I think I have given him and hon. Members an assurance about the security implications of this deal, and what the security situation may look like if there is no deal. It is clear to me: we are lucky to live in one of the safest countries in the world, and with this deal, we will continue to be one of the safest countries. Of course, even if there is no deal, there are some mitigants. There is no perfect mitigant. We will lose certain tools that certainly would have been helpful from a security perspective. But whatever happens, Britain will continue to be one of the safest countries in the world.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the problems with the withdrawal agreement, whatever he has said, is that state aid provisions would prevent the Government from subsidising or supporting our defence industries in the same way that the EU can, and as we currently can under the EU treaties? Is that not a serious risk to our national security that the Government have failed to take into account?
Sajid Javid
I have listened to my hon. Friend carefully. So far, in terms of how those EU state aid rules apply to the UK at the moment, and will indeed apply through the implementation period, I have yet to see how that has a detrimental impact on our security apparatus and supply. However, given that he has raised this issue, it is worth looking at it more closely. If he will allow me, I will do so and get back to him.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Is not the Home Secretary giving us a completely false choice by saying that it is either this deal or no deal, particularly given the decision that we made yesterday in this House that clearly allows us, as a House, to choose different options than just this deal or no deal? Is he not giving us a false choice?
Sajid Javid
No, I am not.
I would now like to turn to the other big issue for the Home Office regarding this deal, which is immigration. Concerns over immigration were a key factor in how people voted in the referendum in 2016. People wanted control over immigration. They wanted future decisions on UK immigration policy to be taken in this country and by this Parliament. That is what this deal delivers. The deal will allow us to create an immigration system that is not constrained by EU laws and that works only in the national interest. Free movement will end. In future, the decision on who comes to the UK will rest with the UK itself, and not with individual migrants. The UK will continue to be an open and welcoming country that attracts the best talent from across the world.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Can I impress on the Home Secretary again the acute problems that there have been in fishing on the west coast of Scotland and, indeed, in Northern Ireland? I do not know how many numerous meetings I have had with various Government Ministers—they come and they go all the time—but will he look at this next year to make sure that it does not happen again? Will he make sure that we are getting crews on boats and that non-European economic area labour is coming in? The problem is going to get worse with the situation we have at the moment. The Home Secretary has this in his gift; it is not Europe that is stopping him. He can lift the pen and this will happen. He will be thanked and appreciated across the west coast of Scotland if he does that.
Sajid Javid
I am always happy to listen to Members. Indeed, I have met many Conservative Scottish Members of this House, who have made that point powerfully. We are listening. The hon. Gentleman refers to current issues, whereas I want to focus in this debate on the future immigration system.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
The Home Secretary is absolutely right to say that concerns about immigration were at the forefront of many reasons that people cited for voting to leave. Is it not therefore extraordinary that ultimately we do not know what the immigration policy and stance of this country would be after March? It necessarily will be interrelated with the future economic relationship. We have no certainty on that—we do not know what it will be—and he has not published his immigration Bill, so how can anyone know before this vote what they will be getting on immigration in the withdrawal agreement?
Sajid Javid
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that immigration was a big issue in the referendum debate and that the type of immigration system we have in the future will have an impact on our economic performance. I know he will be listening carefully to the rest of the debate, and I will give more information on what that system might look like. We are setting out the broad principles of the new system and will be publishing a White Paper, which will have much more—[Interruption.] We will be publishing a White Paper soon. [Hon. Members: “Soon!”] Yes, we will publish it soon.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sajid Javid
I will give way in a moment.
I know that Opposition Members in particular are very eager for this White Paper. They do not have to wait long. It is worth keeping in mind that when the White Paper is published, that is not the end of the conversation. Like all White Papers, it is essentially the start of a broad consultation that will last for many weeks, where we will speak to many businesses and others, including right hon. and hon. Members. That will be a moment when we can set it out in much more detail.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Speaking as a Brexiteer and somebody who campaigned for Brexit, I know that the most important determinant was sovereignty of this place, part of which was sovereignty to decide our own immigration policy and control our borders. We are not against immigration; we want controlled immigration. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the immigration policy will be non-discriminatory as far as the world is concerned?
Sajid Javid
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I agree with all the points he made, including the importance of control of our immigration policy.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The Home Secretary and I both served in the Cabinet of the previous Prime Minister, and he will recall that the previous Prime Minister tried, without success, to get from the European Union a limitation on access to welfare payments for those who have just arrived here. Now we are leaving, and we say we want to take back control. The political declaration is very vague; it talks about social security co-operation. Is it our ambition to ensure that businesses cannot bring people over, pay them very cheap wages and expect them to claim benefits and live in squalid conditions? Will we now rule out access to many of those benefits, which cost a lot of money, for people who come over from the EU?
Sajid Javid
I agree very much with the sentiment of what my right hon. Friend said. I think it is fair to say that once we have left the EU, we will have a lot more flexibility in that area. To return to the previous question, the rules that we apply will be non-discriminatory. The broad intention is to apply the same rules to anyone, regardless of their nationality. It will be focused on an individual’s skills—what they have to offer and the contribution they have to make—and we will not want welfare or any other type of social security payment to be part of someone’s decision to come and work in this country. The White Paper will set out more detail on that.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way, and I want to put in a word for my fellow member of the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), who is hoping to catch his eye. The Home Secretary told us just eight days ago that the immigration White Paper would “certainly” be published in December. Is that still true?
Sajid Javid
It is certainly still my intention to publish it in December. That has not changed.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The Home Secretary said at the Home Affairs Committee that
“the meaningful vote is on the 11th. I hope it”—
the immigration White Paper—
“will come before that”.
That was just last week, yet on Monday he said on the radio that it was “very unlikely” that the White Paper would be published before the vote. What happened in those four or five days to change his mind? Does he think it is acceptable for the House to vote on the withdrawal deal without the information in the White Paper?
Sajid Javid
I will say two things to my hon. Friend, who makes a fair point. First, he asks what has happened. It is worth reminding him and the House that this is the most significant change in our immigration system in 45 years. Rather than rush the White Paper, it is important that we focus on the detail, get it right and get it out as soon as possible. Secondly, of course we should think of our new immigration system as part of our deal as we exit the European Union, but it is also clear that if we have no deal, there will still be a new immigration system. It is worth keeping that in mind.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sajid Javid
I will give way to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who has been very patient.
Joanna Cherry
I just want to disturb the slightly cosy consensus arising between those on the Government Front Bench and some on the Labour Back Benches. The view on immigration in Scotland is different. Voters in Scotland do not want to reduce immigration. Business, the universities, the financial sector, the FinTech sector and the cyber-security sector in my constituency are very keen not to reduce migration to Scotland. Is he aware of that, and will he take that on board in his White Paper?
Sajid Javid
I think the hon. and learned Lady will agree with what I have to say next, which is that immigration has been good for Britain. It has made us a good hub for culture, business and travel, and it has boosted our economy and society in countless ways. That is as true for Scotland as it is for other parts of the United Kingdom. That is why, from the very start of this process, my first priority has been to safeguard the position of more than 3 million EU citizens currently living in the UK and almost 1 million UK nationals living in the EU. The withdrawal agreement guarantees the rights of EU citizens and their family members living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU.
My message on this has been very clear. EU citizens make a huge contribution to our economy and our way of life. They are our friends, our colleagues and our neighbours, and we need and want them to stay, regardless of whether there is a deal. I can confirm that, even in the event of no deal, EU citizens and their families living here in the UK before we leave will be able to apply to the EU settlement scheme and stay. We will be setting out more details on that shortly.
Chris Bryant
I hope the Home Secretary will also think about the fact that it is not necessarily a win for British citizens to lose the right to travel, study and work elsewhere in the European Union, which has been vital to a whole generation of people in this country. More importantly, he says that he is going to change the immigration system, but is he still going to stick to this ludicrous proposal of getting net migration down to the tens of thousands? Even migration from other parts of the world outside the EU, over which the Government have had full control, runs at more than 200,000 a year. Will he say that they will get rid of that nonsense?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman mentioned students. I welcome student exchanges, and I want to see more students, whether from the EU or from outside the EU, choosing Britain as a place to study. We have been very clear. When it comes to students, for example, there is no cap on student numbers. In the past year, we have seen a significant increase in student numbers from across the world. That is just the type of country we want to remain—welcoming people, especially students and others, from across the world who want to study here or come here as tourists or those who can contribute skills that we actually need.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Of course, we do not just want the students to come here; particularly in Scotland, we want them to stay here and contribute to our economy. Will the Home Secretary look at reinstating the post-study work visa, so that we are not educating young people from across the world simply for them to take their skills elsewhere and feed other countries’ economies?
Sajid Javid
I actually have some sympathy with what the hon. Lady says. Interestingly, a report that I will mention in a moment—the independent Migration Advisory Committee report—talks about looking at some of the post-study work rights, and I am actively doing so. We have to be careful, however, that those post-study work rights do not in themselves become the reason for someone to choose to study in Britain. They must choose to study in Britain because of what our fantastic universities and other educational establishments have to offer. However, it is also sensible, when people choose to study in Britain and take qualifications in the skills needed in our own economy, that we have a sensible approach that allows them to stay and to continue to contribute, if that makes sense for us.
Joanna Cherry
I am struggling to understand what the Home Secretary is saying about post-study work visas. Is he saying that we should not deliberately try to attract talent to the nations of these islands? Is his position that we should not deliberately try to attract talent to the nations of these islands? Is that the Government’s position?
Sajid Javid
That is the complete opposite of what I was saying, so either the hon. and learned Lady misheard me or that is what she would have liked me to say so that she can open it up as some sort of attack line in a press release. That is exactly what I did not say.
Sajid Javid
No. I am happy to make it clear that I welcome students who choose Britain, and I think we should take a fresh look at how we can retain talent, with people who have chosen to study in Britain continuing to work in Britain if that meets our economic needs.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
On the point about universities more broadly, they obviously rely on attracting the best academic talent to teach our students and international students. Will the Home Secretary briefly explain whether his immigration White Paper will make sure that we do not close the doors to that, reflecting on the fact that many of these professionals are not highly paid, and that salaries are often taken to translate to skill levels although in this case—it is the same with the performing arts—that does not hold?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of experience in this area, and she is absolutely right to point that out. Our universities do rely on academic talent, much of which comes from abroad, and that is to be welcomed. We must have an immigration system that continues to allow that, and we must take a careful look at the salary levels she has mentioned.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), will the Home Secretary commit to looking at the extra costs and the bureaucracy that will fall on our health service and our care sector? As she has said, because of the salary threshold that applies, many of the key staff who enable our health service and care sector to function will fall below that salary threshold, and the extra costs that will fall on the care sector in particular are quite extraordinary. Will he commit to reducing bureaucracy and tackling that cost?
Sajid Javid
Again, a very important point has been raised by one of my colleagues. I absolutely make that commitment. My hon. Friend is quite right to raise it, because we have to recognise that as we move from the current system of freedom of movement, in which there is virtually no bureaucracy to speak of, to a system under which we will require visas for every worker, we must keep an eye on the paperwork and bureaucratic requirements and keep the system as simple and light-touch as possible. That applies not just to larger employers, such as hospitals or NHS trusts, but to the smaller employers that may be looking for skills but perhaps taking only one or two people a year, and we should keep that in our minds as well.
James Heappey
This is not just about doctors and nurses of course; in my constituency, an awful lot of those involved in agriculture and tourism are concerned to ensure that a seasonal workforce continues to be readily available. Will the Home Secretary reassure us that there is a mechanism in his plans to allow that sort of migration so that the needs of those very important industries in Somerset can be met?
Sajid Javid
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will know that we have announced a pilot for the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, which we are starting early next year, working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The purpose of the pilot is to make sure that we look carefully at how we can continue to meet the needs of that very important sector.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I am sure the Home Secretary realises that 800,000 people in this country work in the automobile industry, and it is therefore very important that we get the specialist labour that facilitates research and development. That involves the universities, and not very much has been said in relation to Brexit about the plight of the universities if it is not handled properly.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight the importance of our automobile industry and the need for skills, particularly in areas such as engineering. I can give an assurance that we will want to make sure that the new immigration system allows for these vital skills where they are needed.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Home Secretary confirm that in the case of a no deal, there will be an immediate hard border in Northern Ireland to stop the passage of people and products, and that in the event of a deal, people will just be able to fly into Dublin and walk into the UK via Northern Ireland?
Sajid Javid
No one wants a no deal, but I can confirm that in the event of a no deal, the UK Government would not do anything to create a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Unrestricted immigration has caused some people some concerns. As I have said, I will shortly introduce a White Paper, which will set out proposals for the future immigration system. I understand hon. Members’ frustrations about the timing of the White Paper, but I say again that it is an entirely new system—the most significant change to our immigration rules in 45 years—and we need to take the time to get the details right. We have made it clear that it will be a system based on skills, not on someone’s nationality.
The design of the future system has to be based on evidence about the needs of our economy. This is why we have commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to report on the economic impact of EU workers and to ensure that the new system benefits Britain. In addition, we have been listening and engaging with businesses up and down the country to hear their views, concerns and ideas. I am grateful to all those who have taken the trouble to give us their views and have submitted evidence to the MAC. We have considered that advice, and we will be setting it out and taking it into account when we publish our White Paper.
Our future system will be flexible, so that the trade deals we agree with the EU and with others can allow businesses to provide services and move existing staff between offices in different countries, supporting our dynamic economy. The agreement we have reached with the EU will enable us to do this through visa-free travel for tourists and business travellers, and arrangements for service providers and for researchers and students.
Wera Hobhouse
The Home Secretary has been very generous in giving way. He did not actually answer the question from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but is it not time that we stopped demonising immigration and came clean about the fact that immigration is actually dictated by the job market, not by wishful thinking about how much immigration we would actually like? In fact, the figures that have come out showing immigration from the EU is down but immigration from outside the EU is up clearly demonstrate that we need immigration.
Sajid Javid
I feel that I have been very clear on that point. I just said a moment ago that immigration is good for our country and that we need a system that welcomes people and the talent we all want to see in this country. That will help this country, particularly our economy and our needs.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
How does the Home Secretary feel that the immigration section of the Home Office will cope in the new regime when it cannot even run an effective, efficient and fair immigration service at the moment? It is already damaging Britain’s reputation overseas in non-EU countries.
Sajid Javid
I am confident that the Home Office can cope with a big change in our approach to immigration. That is not to say that there are not lessons to learn from mistakes that have been made in the past, but it is important to ensure that when things go wrong—they do go wrong; that happens in any large organisation and it has happened under successive Governments—there is independent analysis and the proper lessons are drawn. That is exactly what we are doing in the Home Office. I am confident that with that, and with the talent we have in the Home Office, we can deliver the new immigration system.
Our immigration system must be tailored to support and give preferential treatment to highly skilled workers. Of course, there are sectors and businesses that have come to rely on low-skilled workers and continued access to migrant labour—I understand that—but in controlling migration, we should always look to those in our own workforce first. We will need to work with businesses, so that they can adapt and play their part in increasing the skills of British people. We are also committed to ensuring that our world-class education sector can continue to grow and prosper, with no limit on the number of international students who come here to study.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
On work, will the Home Secretary lift the ban on asylum seekers having the right to work?
Sajid Javid
We currently have no plans to change that arrangement, but it is one of the areas I would like to review.
Let me be very clear: the White Paper is intended to be the start of a new conversation on immigration. It is not the last word, but the start of an ongoing dialogue with employers, businesses and others who use our immigration system. The Home Affairs Committee has said we should aim for a greater consensus on immigration; I agree. Basing our policy on evidence and extensive discussion with those affected will help us to achieve that.
We plan to introduce new immigration rules from 2021, after the end of the implementation period. For the first time in over 45 years, the UK will have complete control over its immigration arrangements. We will ensure that we have a system that ends free movement, is fair and fast, and works in the interests of all parts of the UK.
Let me conclude by reminding right hon. and hon. Members that the British people were given a choice and were told that their choice would be honoured. This deal involves taking back control of our money, our borders and our laws, while also protecting jobs, security and our precious Union. For the first time in a generation, we will be able to build an immigration system that is designed in Britain, made in Britain, and serves only our national interest. The deal protects not only EU citizens living in the UK, but UK nationals living in the EU. It also upholds the first duty of any Government: keeping our citizens as safe as possible. I urge hon. Members to join me in supporting it.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
In many ways, migration and security are at the heart of the debate around Brexit, so I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to it from the Labour Front Bench. I think, however, that after the events of yesterday evening there can be little doubt that this is indeed a botched Brexit. Ministers should be ashamed that they had to be forced to comply with a motion of this House. We heard a lot, when they were trying to argue that they should not have to comply, about the national interest. But we have read the legal advice. There is nothing in it that compromises the national interest. It may be embarrassing for the Government, but it does not compromise the national interest. As the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) pointed out, it is not actually the full legal advice. It may be that he wants to return to that matter.
I voted to remain and the Labour party campaigned to remain and reform, but my party has said from the beginning that we respect the referendum result. It is true that there were substantive reasons to vote for Brexit. Above all, there were the long-standing concerns about sovereignty, which were so well articulated over his entire lifetime by my late colleague, the former Member for Chesterfield, Tony Benn. Nobody would deny, however, that concerns about migration were not far from the minds of some, if not all, leave voters.
James Heappey
Does the Labour party support the continuation of the free movement of people—yes or no?
Ms Abbott
The hon. Gentleman will know that when we leave the single market, freedom of movement falls. We said that in our manifesto and we are saying it now.
The available research confirms the salience of migration to leave voters. In June 2017, a report collated from the British social attitudes survey revealed that the most significant factor in the leave vote was anxiety about the number of people coming to the UK. A comprehensive study published by Nuffield College drew similar conclusions.
Geraint Davies
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that since 2010 the Conservatives have made the poor poorer and then told them that foreigners were the reason they were poor, and that that is why they voted for Brexit? In fact, migration helps us. This is about not allowing right-wing propaganda to lead our country, and it is about staying in the EU and having a public vote on the deal.
Ms Abbott
All I can say is that the Labour party, whether in opposition or in government, will never scapegoat migrants. It does not help society, and it is not a constructive way to go forward politically. Who can forget Nigel Farage in the referendum campaign posing in front of the poster which showed floods of brown people surging into this country?
Joanna Cherry
The right hon. Lady mentioned a moment ago that one of the main reasons people voted to leave was a concern about sovereignty, and she referred to the views of the late and very well respected former Member for Chesterfield. May I ask her to speculate on this? Why is it that the Irish, the French, the Germans, the Spanish, the Dutch, the Swedish, the Danes—I could go on—do not share the same concerns that the English, not the Scots, have about sovereignty and the EU? Will she answer that question, because it is a question that genuinely puzzles me?
Ms Abbott
I do not think it is entirely true to say that those countries do not share those concerns. I think we would have to look to our very different national stories to understand that concern.
Migration is at the heart of this Brexit debate, and I am glad to have the opportunity to address it this afternoon. Before I turn to immigration, however, I want to speak about the other theme to today’s debate: security. Ministers have been trying to drum up support for the Prime Minister’s deal by saying that the alternative is no deal, which would be disastrous for security. But the Prime Minister’s deal would be almost as bad. At best, we can say that it is a blindfold Brexit on security. At worst, it may be leading us off a cliff on security matters.
Ministers insist that the deal that is being put before this House will offer us better arrangements than any other third country. I put it to Ministers that that is not the point. The point is not whether there are better arrangements in other third countries. The point is whether these arrangements will give us the same assurances on security and fighting crime that we currently have. If we go through the deal, we can see that there appears to be a trade-off on security, because in order to achieve a seamless transition on a range of security, policing and justice matters and have the current level of co-operation, it would require a new security treaty between the UK and the EU, yet there is no expressed aim in the exit document to move towards a security treaty.
Ministers cannot say that they are unaware of the need for a new security treaty. In Brussels, the stakeholders and commissioners who are concerned about these matters have been talking for two years about the importance of moving forward with a security treaty. Without a security treaty, we may run the risk of losing a number of tools that are vital to cross-border security, policing and justice, while other tools will be hampered or severely compromised.
Tim Loughton
The right hon. Lady appears to be putting all the blame for this on the United Kingdom. Is she not aware that when Rob Wainwright, the very distinguished British former head of Europol, appeared in front of the Home Affairs Committee, he said that all the current arrangements and data sharing from which we and our European allies benefit could be continued, and that that is what their security forces want? Those things are not being continued purely because of politics.
Ms Abbott
They could be continued—my point is that there is nothing definite in the deal that we are being presented with in the House that would make sure that they were continued. On the question of security, assertions, aspirations and a wishlist are not enough—we need a treaty.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Last year, 183 people were returned to this country from other European countries to face justice under the European arrest warrant. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that as things stand, that process will end?
David Hanson
The critical point that my right hon. Friend needs to be aware of is that the European arrest warrant is subject to the ECJ for other European countries, and the Government have specifically said that we should not be a member of the ECJ, so we would have to have individual relationships with each country and would therefore be less safe under the Government’s proposal.
Ms Abbott
I will come to that point, but I will say now that the Prime Minister’s red lines, one of which was the ECJ, may well prove to have been reckless. The EU insists on treaty arrangements governing key aspects of international security, justice and policing, as do we. Without a treaty, courts have no legal basis to implement arrest or extradition warrants and cannot allow third countries access to criminal and other databases. We are on course to become a third country in our relationship with the EU. Because there is no security treaty planned or even aimed for in the exit documents, the level of co-operation between the UK and the EU post Brexit could be severely and unavoidably downgraded.
Ministers will be aware that neither France nor Germany will automatically extradite to non-EU countries—their constitutions say that. There will be a mutual loss of the use of the European arrest warrant, and the UK will no longer be able to access the Europol database in real time. In addition, as a third country, the UK’s access to databases of criminal records, fingerprints, DNA and missing and wanted persons will be compromised. Ministers promise a future security partnership between this country and the EU. However, the assurance on access to SIS II and the European criminal records information system is only that
“the UK and the EU have agreed to consider further how to deliver capabilities that, as far as technically and legally possible, approximate those enabled by EU mechanisms”.
That is not the same as assuring us of the same level of co-operation that we have today. In relation to the European arrest warrant, there is not even that promise. On passenger name records and the exchange of DNA, fingerprints, and vehicle registration, the agreement says:
“The UK and the EU have agreed to establish reciprocal arrangements”.
It does not say that they have established reciprocal arrangements; it is a wish for the future. However, without appeal and oversight by a court—that role is currently played by the ECJ—all these things could be subject to legal challenge in practice.
Ms Abbott
No, I need to make progress.
In addition, on the EU agencies Europol and Eurojust, about which Members have made interventions, the deal says:
“The UK and the EU have agreed, as part of the FSP, to work together to identify the terms for the UK’s cooperation via Europol and Eurojust.”
Working together to identify the terms is not the same as a guarantee of the same access and co-operation that we have today. As these are EU agencies, they are not in principle open to non-member states. Again, if that were to change, the legal basis for that would require a treaty.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Abbott
I need to make progress.
The practical effects would be severe. Last year, the UK law enforcement agencies accessed SIS II checks 500 million times. UK authorities requested access to criminal records 3,000 times a week. The danger is that extradition arrangements would fall back on the 1957 European convention on extradition, which proved extremely time-consuming and cumbersome. Most members of the Council of Europe have reserved rights or derogations under the convention, limiting its effect. At worst, the gaps and loopholes created under this exit agreement could create a situation in which organised criminals and terrorists in the EU might come to regard the UK as a relative safe haven from justice. Under this agreement, absent any significant change to the issues I have enumerated, ongoing co-operation in cases and investigations may ultimately be compromised. On the basis of security concerns alone, no Member of the House should be signing off this deal.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
The right hon. Lady gives a very accurate list of consequences that follow from leaving the European Union, which is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary deftly avoided the question, “Is it not inevitable that the arrangements of this country for security and the fight against international crime will be weaker once we have left the European Union than when we were in it?” As the right hon. Lady has committed her party to leaving, will she explain how Labour believes that it can negotiate anything other than this between now and next March? The Labour party has no remedy for this, unless it is thinking of reopening the question of our membership of the European Union.
Ms Abbott
I have to make progress.
Let me first deal with the status of EU nationals. I begin by saying how distasteful it was to many of us that the Prime Minister referred to “queue jumpers”. She seemed to be implying that there was some unfairness or illegitimacy in their role in British society, whereas EU nationals play a vital role in business, academia, agriculture and public services such as health and social care. EU citizens and their dependants living here cannot be reassured by the terms of the deal. The Home Secretary has given general assurances, but the deal says almost nothing in detail about their rights, including work, residency and access to services. No one on either side of the House who has ever had anything to do with the immigration and nationality directorate can have confidence in the Home Office’s ability to process the approximately 5 million applications that are required to process settled status applications. I am aware that the Home Secretary sets great store by his app, but he knows perfectly well that it cannot be used on iPhones, and although it has been trialled, the trials involved volunteers and only the simpler cases.
We have all seen the shameful chaos around the Windrush scandal. Today’s National Audit Office report on Windrush is comprehensively negative. It criticises the Home Office for its poor-quality data; the risky use of deportation targets; poor value for money; and a failure to respond to numerous warnings that its policies would hurt people living in the UK legally. It is a damning report, and Ministers should be ashamed. EU citizens can only await with trepidation their further and deeper engagement with the Home Office.
Chris Bryant
My right hon. Friend and I represent very different constituencies, but they are both among the poorest in the land. One of the ironies of the present immigration situation is that my constituency now has the lowest percentage of people living in it who were not born in it for 120 years. One of the many benefits that my constituents have enjoyed in recent years has been the ability to live, work and study elsewhere. I understand all the arguments about wanting to limit the number of people coming into this country, though I personally find it quite distressing, but should we not make sure that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater? We need to make sure that our citizens have the right to study, work and prosper, whether they come from the poorest or the richest background in this country.
Ms Abbott
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. If Members talk to younger people, they will hear that one of their biggest doubts about Brexit is that they do not welcome the idea that they will not be able to travel, work and study in the way they have done under our membership of the EU.
Then there is the question of the missing immigration White Paper. The Home Secretary said he did not want to rush to produce it. I remind the House that we were originally promised it in summer 2017, then the Government were going to produce it this February, then it was to be published in March, before the recess, then in July, and then after the Migration Advisory Committee report in October; now the Home Secretary assures us it will be published “soon”. What confidence can anyone have in post-Brexit immigration policy when Ministers still do not seem to know what they want—or, more to the point, cannot agree on what they want? How can the House be expected to vote on this deal without detail on proposed immigration policy?
We know that the Tories are stealing some of Labour’s terminology about a rational immigration system based on our economic needs, but I suspect that Ministers mean something very different. On this issue, Government rhetoric sounding like Labour is a very insincere form of flattery. The suspicion must be that the Government’s actual policy is to begin to treat EU migrants as badly as they have treated non-EU migrants over many years.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
There is one other factor, which my right hon. Friend may be coming to. Does she agree that it would be quite possible for the Government to apply free movement in a more restrictive way, particularly regarding the world of work, as other countries, such as France, have done? Would she like to speculate on whether one reason why the Government have not done that is that the Home Office is so overwhelmed and has been so greatly cut that it does not have the capacity to enforce such a tighter policy?
Ms Abbott
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. The cuts have unquestionably had an impact on the Home Office.
The Government have suggested that they will distinguish between high and low-skilled migrants and discriminate in favour of the former. On the face of it, that is a logical position, yet all indications are that their real distinction will be between high and low-paid migrant workers, which will leave a range of sectors struggling with skills and labour shortages, including among nurses, social care workers, agricultural workers and others in the private sector. This artificial distinction between high and low-skilled migrants, which is really about income, is both unfair and potentially damaging to the economy,
The Government have long been promising a new immigration Bill for a post-Brexit environment, but it seems that there is a split in the Government—I know it sounds shocking—between adjusting the immigration system towards supporting our economic needs and a constant campaign against migrants and migration. They will probably try to do both—“have cake and eat it” politics. There is also no indication that they will drop their unworkable net migration target, which has never once been met but which allows a continuing negative narrative campaign against migration and migrants. The level of non-EU migration alone is currently running close to 250,000 a year, and that is migration over which the Government have absolute control. There is no indication either that they intend to end the hostile environment policy—rename it yes, but end it no—yet we know that it led directly to the Windrush scandal.
The spurious distinction between high and low-skilled migrants, which is really discrimination against the lower-paid, will have negative consequences for a range of sectors. We await with interest the publication of the immigration Bill to see how the internal differences within the Government are resolved, but the Government are asking all of us to vote for their deal without telling us what their new immigration policy will be. This is a blindfold Brexit deal. As I said at the beginning, the Opposition honour and respect the referendum vote, but how can it be that Ministers are asking the House to vote for a deal that neither leavers nor remainers are happy with; asking us to vote for a deal when so many crucial issues, notably on security, are not yet clear; and asking us to vote for a deal that could endanger not just our economy but our security? The more we examine the deal, the more it becomes clear that the House cannot vote for it.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
It is with a sense of trepidation that I stand to speak from the Back Benches for the first time in six years and for the first time since I resigned last Friday in order to vote against this withdrawal agreement. I loved my job. Innovation, scientific endeavour and our universities represent the best of Britain, and they underpin our future and our place in the world, so I did not take the decision lightly. At this point, I would like to say congratulations and good luck to my successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), and wish him all the best in that job.
I carefully considered the deal, which has been described as having a remain flavour. Even as a remainer, it became clear to me that it was not politically or practically deliverable, and that it would make us poorer and risk the Union. I encourage everyone to look at the deal and come to their own decision. I believe that whether we are leavers or remainers we are all first of all British and that it is the national interest we care most about, but the political declaration is not a deal; it is a deal in name only. It is a framework for negotiation with a lot of aspirations. Yes, it has all been hard fought for and hard won—I give the Prime Minister and her team the credit for that—but, now that it is in front of us in Parliament, we have to look at it as parliamentarians. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary admitted at the Dispatch Box that the deal might not be perfect, almost implying that this was like trying on a pair of shoes that were not the right colour and perhaps a bit tight, but getting on with it and life would be fine. However, this deal is like a pair of shoes with holes in the soles. It is fatally flawed.
There are three big reasons for that. The first is that all the big issues, whether they relate to security, home affairs, agriculture, fishing, our independent trading policy or frictionless trade, have been kicked into the long grass. While the public are being told that this is almost like the end of the process, we are actually just finishing one process and about to begin on another long and arduous process. We will be doing that at a time when we will have given up our vote, our veto and our voice, and will have no leverage whatsoever.
The ultimate fall-back position in this deal is the Northern Ireland backstop. We will be negotiating with the clock against us, with a fall-back position that is existential for us and not existential for the EU, and we will be expected to get the best deal for Britain. I doubt very much that we will. I believe that, in voting for this deal, we will be losing and not taking control of our destiny. We must be clear-eyed as we go into these negotiations because they have been set up for failure. The EU will manage the timetable, it will manage the sequencing of the negotiations, it will set the hurdles and it will tell us when we can progress to the next stage. That is what happened in the first phase of the negotiations and that is what will happen in the second phase. We will always be in a position in which we have to walk away or fold, and I know what will happen: we will always fold because the clock will be ticking.
The EU elections next year will pose a big problem for us. In 2019, everyone in the EU will be focused on those elections, so I doubt that much progress will be made during the first year of our initial two-year implementation period. At the end of that year there will be a new Commission and a new Parliament, which will not be party to the political declaration on which we will vote in the House. A new Trade Commissioner will be appointed. We will then have one year, as part of the first implementation period, in which to negotiate or go for an extension. In all likelihood we will go for the extension in June-July that year, so we will trip into the second implementation period and pay a significant amount of money for the privilege. We will go into the second period with a general election on the horizon, a Northern Ireland backstop that no one in the House wants, and yes, whatever assurances we are given, in all likelihood we will pay any price that the EU asks of us in order to get out of that backstop. So what do we have? We have “best endeavours” to rely on.
In my previous job as science and innovation Minister, I was involved in the Galileo negotiations. The EU stacked the deck against us time and again. Before the ink was dry on the transition deal, we were served notice that we could not participate in the security aspects, although when we were negotiating the deal we were led to believe that we could. We were then served notice that British industrial interests could not bid for contracts, even though British companies had built the encryption and security elements of Galileo—or, rather, they could do that, but they would have to move to countries within the EU in order to do so. We threatened to use our veto. The date of the vote was moved, and during the interregnum the EU changed the rules to involve simple majority voting, so our veto did not apply. Galileo is a foretaste of what is to come in these negotiations. We are setting ourselves up for failure by going down this route.
Carol Monaghan
The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the concerns about Galileo were raised as long ago as the summer of 2016. It is simply not the case that the potential problems of access were not known during the negotiations. Many articles were written about it and many representatives of industry raised their concerns with us.
Mr Gyimah
The concerns were raised and were discussed. We signed a transition deal on the basis of best endeavours, only to realise that that was not the basis on which the other side was operating.
I bear no grudge against the EU for putting the EU first. I bear no grudge against the EU for aggressively prosecuting its interests. What does concern me is that, given the political declaration that we have before us, we do not have much leverage. The unique relationship that we are being told we can negotiate is unlikely to happen. What is most likely to happen is that we will be given a free trade agreement dictated to us by the EU.
We should level with the public. This deal does not bring closure. It is not a case of “Sign here, let us have a compromise and all the discord and disharmony that we have experienced over the last few years will suddenly disappear.” We will see Brexit Secretaries resign next year because so many of the issues have still not been thrashed out. The deal will not heal the divisions that we see in our country. Ultimately, we are at the foothills of a long and arduous process. Brexit will not be over as a result of the vote next week.
The Home Secretary said that there was no alternative, but I believe that that is a false choice. There are many options. What we have is a deal that has been engineered to put maximum pressure on all the other options in favour of the options that the Government are putting before us. We could list some of those options, and I will list them without prejudice initially. First, there is the Government’s deal. Secondly, there is the revocation of article 50. Thirdly, there is no deal. The important thing about those things is that all are within our control and do not require negotiation with the EU. If we want to negotiate with the EU, we can negotiate to extend article 50 in order to look at the backstop again. We can negotiate with the EU to extend article 50 in order to hold another referendum. We can negotiate with the EU to extend article 50 in order to look at the Norway option, in which I know a number of colleagues are interested. The Government may box themselves in with their own red lines, but that is no reason for Parliament to accept being boxed in by those same red lines.
There is, however a constraint. The ultimate constraint seems to me that there is no majority for any option in this Parliament. There may be plenty of options, but I doubt that there will be a majority for them. I have said that we should not rule out, if need be, going back to the people. When I say that, everyone says that it will be corrosive of our politics, it will be destructive of our politics and it will be hugely divisive. We should not be presumptive about where the electorate are, but I believe that that is not a reason to vote for the withdrawal agreement. If we vote for the agreement, we will give the public the impression that this is the best compromise and there are no problems further down the line: this is Brexit done. Waking up and seeing that Britain is being hobbled and crippled in those negotiations would also disappoint voters and that would also be corrosive of our politics.
I resigned because I thought, “This is probably the biggest vote in which I will take part during my political career.” It is for each Member in the House to decide what to do but, for me, the national interest is not served by voting for the Government’s motion.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), and I applaud his courage in resigning as a result of his concerns about the deal.
There is much I could say about the detail of this agreement: red lines breached, for example, and the Court of Justice of the European Union articles 87, 89, 158 and 174 and article 14 of the protocol in relation to Northern Ireland make it very clear that the Prime Minister has had to make some pretty major concessions on her red line on the Court of Justice. We have heard in the Chamber—and have now seen it clearly in writing in the legal advice—that as a matter of law we could be trapped in the Northern Ireland backstop permanently and unable to get out of it, as I sought to clarify with the Attorney General earlier this week. The Northern Ireland backstop also means that the catch of fishing vessels registered in Northern Ireland will have preferential treatment through tariff-free access to the market in a way that fishing vessels registered elsewhere in the UK, including Scotland, will not have. I look forward—but do not hold my breath—to hearing the Scottish Conservatives making a fuss about that.
Today and the next few days should be about the bigger picture. I am looking forward to having an in-depth debate about immigration in due course, if we ever do see that much-promised White Paper, but I do want to make a few remarks about it now before moving on to the bigger picture. As I said earlier, it is a matter of record, because Scotland voted to remain, that the Scots did not hold the same concerns about sovereignty or immigration as held elsewhere in these islands, yet the political declaration confirms the UK Government’s intention to end freedom of movement. That will see people across these islands, but in particular the Scots who did not vote for it, lose the rights they have as EU citizens.
This is a deal that will see us made poorer not just economically, but also, equally importantly, socially. Even the Migration Advisory Committee has acknowledged that inward migration has made an overwhelmingly positive contribution to the economy of these islands, and particularly Scotland. The MAC, while failing to acknowledge the need for regional and national variations in immigration policy across the UK, did knock on the head many of the myths about immigration that drove the sort of xenophobia that led to the poster the Labour spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), described earlier.
Scotland in particular has benefited from inward migration because at the start of this century we had a dwindling population and that EU migration has built our population and brought many young and economically active people into Scotland. Any Scottish MP who holds regular surgeries will confirm that that is a fact. There are two major universities in my constituency and all the academics tell me it is a fact that the process of Brexit and the rhetoric around immigration in this country is discouraging people from coming to live and work and study in Scotland. Scots did not vote for that, and that is one of the many reasons why we will not be supporting this deal.
Freedom of movement has been vital to fill gaps in the employment market in Scotland, and indeed across the UK. We have a big crisis across the UK in how we look after our ageing population. A lot of the people who look after our ageing population at present come from elsewhere in the EU and it will be a real shame if we discourage them from coming here in the future.
Mr Nigel Evans
I agree with the hon. and learned Lady about students coming to the UK and that they should be able to work for a period as part of the payback; I think that is important. But does she accept that many people who voted for Brexit are not saying no to immigration? This is just about controlling immigration and that it should be this Parliament and the Government of this country that decide immigration levels.
Joanna Cherry
No one is saying we should not have an immigration policy; of course we must have an immigration policy. The point I am making is that the immigration policy should be evidence-based and take account of the needs of the economy and the different regions and nations of these islands, and this Government’s policy does not do that. If the Government have such a great idea about future immigration policy across the UK, why is it taking them so long to publish the White Paper? And if they are so keen to throw their arms open to people from all across the world and have everyone come here on an equal basis, why does the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of those on the Conservative Benches—persist in her ridiculous net migration target? It is just nonsense that the Conservatives want to throw the doors open; for so long as the Prime Minister is in place and that ridiculous migration target is in place, that simply will not happen.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Government will try to ramp up the rhetoric around EU migrants, but the reality is that in order to get some of their trade deals through, they will have to bend the visa rules for India and elsewhere, so what they take with one hand they will give with the other anyway.
Joanna Cherry
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is crystal clear that if we ever get to the stage of being able to enter into third-party trade deals, which looks pretty unlikely at the moment, in return for access to the markets of countries outside the EU, those countries are going to want access to the UK for people who want to migrate from their country to here.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. and learned Lady agree that it is the language around immigration that has been so toxic? I am a European migrant and I look around thinking, “Do they mean me?” That is exactly what other Europeans feel.
Joanna Cherry
I agree, and part of the reason why the language has been so toxic is that we have been talking not about the reality of the situation but about a perceived reality.
A Labour Member who is no longer in his place made a point earlier that I entirely agree with: the Conservatives have through their policies created a great deal of poverty across the UK. Wales and Scotland have to an extent been protected from that because we have had different devolved Governments, but I notice as I travel around provincial England that the infrastructure is not in as good condition as it is in Scotland. No social housing has been built here for years, too; in contrast we are building a lot of social housing in Scotland. Many working-class people in England have been led to believe that the cause of their woes, such as the fact that they cannot get a house or a well-paid job—they can get a job, but not a properly paid job—is the immigrants, when it is the fault of this toxic Conservative Government.
Under the withdrawal agreement, EU citizens who are already here will not continue to enjoy the same rights that they enjoy now; they will continue to enjoy some rights, but not the same rights. They will lose their lifelong right of return, they will not have the same family reunification rights, and they will get no protection from inadvertently becoming undocumented illegal citizens—and, my goodness, the Windrush scandal has taught us what happens to undocumented citizens who are lawful citizens in this country. God help EU citizens who find themselves undocumented illegal citizens. Do not take my word for it; take the word of the National Audit Office and reports of various Committees in this House. And in order to hang on to the rights they already have—not to get a passport, but to get the digital identity that means they can hang on to the rights they already have—fees will be imposed on EU citizens. In Scotland, the Scottish Government have said they will pay those fees for those working in the public sector, but now it appears that there might be a bit of a tax-catch in relation to that, and I am looking forward to the Conservative Government addressing that properly, and perhaps extending the same largesse that the Scottish Government have to people working in the public sector south of the border.
I am going to touch briefly on the security, justice and law enforcement issues. As other Members have said, it is simply impossible for us as a third country to have the same degree of security, justice and law co-operation that we previously had, and, in fairness, the Home Secretary recognised that. But one of the things that has concerned those of us who represent Scottish constituencies—or some of us, at least—and the Scottish Government and commentators in Scotland most about this process has been the abject failure of the British Government to recognise that Scotland has a separate civil and criminal justice system. This is not about devolution; this is about the Act of Union. Scotland has had a separate legal system forever, and it is protected by the Act of Union. Yet our separate criminal justice system, our separate civil law system, and our separate Law Officers have not been consulted properly on the impact of these matters on the Scottish legal system. As we know, there is no mention whatsoever of Scotland in the withdrawal agreement or the political declaration. A lot of other much smaller regions get a mention, but not Scotland. This is not fanciful; I know, because I used to work in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, that co-operation across Europe has made a huge difference to law enforcement in Scotland, and if we lose that, we will be worse off as a result.
As I said earlier, today is a day for looking at the bigger picture. Speaking as someone who represents a Scottish constituency and as someone of Irish parentage, I see the bigger picture of the whole Brexit process as a tale of two Unions: the Union that is the United Kingdom and the Union that is the European Union. There are extremely stark differences between the ways in which the members of those Unions treat one another. So far as Ireland, north and south, is concerned, British politicians largely overlooked the threat that Brexit posed to the Good Friday agreement until after the referendum, and even then, many of them—particularly on the Conservative Benches—were and still are unable to accept the reality of the legal obligations that the United Kingdom undertook in that agreement. That old anti-Irish xenophobia that people like my mother remember so well has raised its head again, even to the extent of some on the Conservative Benches talking about the Irish tail wagging the British dog, and other such insulting metaphors. However, because the EU27 got behind the Irish Government’s legitimate concerns, they became central to the Brexit process. Conservative politicians—not all of them, but some—and indeed a few on the Benches behind me, waited in vain for the EU27 to crack and throw Ireland under the bus. That did not happen, and it is not going to happen.
I was at an event recently where the distinguished professor of modern history at University College Dublin, Mary Daly, remarked that the current situation in this House had uncanny echoes of what happened here 100 years ago when the electric politics of Ulster determined what happened at Westminster. It is quite ironic that that should be so, given that we are shortly to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the election of the first female MP to this Parliament. She was of course the distinguished Irish nationalist, the Countess Markievicz, who went on to be the first woman Cabinet Minister in western Europe. The truth is that the problems that arose as a result of partition have come back to haunt this House as a result of the Brexit process, but I believe that something that unites us all is that we want to see peace being kept in Northern Ireland.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. and learned Lady accept that the Republic of Ireland actually has been thrown under the bus but does not realise that the wheels are running over it? If this agreement goes through, a border down the Irish sea will affect not only Northern Ireland but the Republic of Ireland, whose main market is GB and which takes its goods across GB, using it as a land bridge. It will find checks not just at Holyhead but at Dover.
Joanna Cherry
No, I do not accept that. I speak regularly with politicians from all parties in the Republic of Ireland and that is certainly not how they see matters. In fact, politicians, businesses and the wider community in the Republic are broadly very happy with the way in which the European Union has dealt with this. It is sometimes conveniently forgotten in this House that Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union. It is forgotten partly because Northern Ireland has not had the democratic voice of its Assembly during this time. It is only the voice of the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that has been heard here in relation to Northern Ireland, but his party, the Democratic Unionist party, does not represent the majority of people in Northern Ireland, who voted to remain. The Prime Minister has refused to meet the Greens, the Social Democratic and Labour party, Sinn Féin or the Alliance, which is quite disgraceful.
Meanwhile, in Scotland, the people voted to remain in the EU by an even more substantial margin than that of Northern Ireland. It was 62%, and polls show that if a vote were held tomorrow, the figure would be nearer to 70%. Despite that, the Scottish Government have concerns. They are a democratically elected Government, although I know that those on the Conservative Benches like to call them the SNP Government and pretend that they have no legitimacy. They were elected democratically, and their legitimate concerns, which are often supported by other parties in the Scottish Parliament—as they will be today when the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and Labour will vote with the SNP to try to protect Scotland from the consequences of Brexit—have been wholly ignored. We can only look on with envy as the concerns of the Irish Government are placed centre stage in Brussels. Unlike Northern Ireland, Scotland has had a strong and functioning Government and Parliament during this process that have been well able to express their views, but that has not protected us. This Brexit process has highlighted the limits of devolved—as opposed to independent—government.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. We fully expect the Scottish Parliament this evening to endorse a cross-party motion rejecting the withdrawal agreement, just as the Welsh Assembly did last night. The Scottish Conservatives are describing that debate as needless. They suggest that Scotland does not need to talk about Brexit, that the big Parliament in Westminster will make that decision for us and that we should know our place. That exemplifies just how they want to undermine devolution and use Brexit to do so.
Joanna Cherry
Of course, of the Scottish Conservatives do not represent the majority of Scottish opinion in relation to anything, let alone Brexit. It is often forgotten, after the hullabaloo when they won seats here last year, that they are still very much in the minority in Scottish politics and the Scottish Parliament.
Let us look at what has happened to Scotland in the past two years. The UK Government cut the Scottish Government out of the Brexit negotiations completely. The Scottish Government put forward the idea for a differentiated deal or a compromise for the whole of the United Kingdom at an early stage, but that was completely ignored. The Scottish Parliament voted—with the cross-party support of everyone apart from the Tories and one Lib Dem—to withhold consent to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, but that, too, was ignored. When the Scottish Parliament tried to pass its own legal continuity Bill, it was challenged by the British Government in the UK Supreme Court, and we are still waiting for that decision. When amendments to the withdrawal Bill came back from the House of Lords to the Floor of this House, Scottish MPs got 19 minutes to debate the implications of those amendments, with the rest of the time being taken up by the Government Minister. Scotland is not mentioned in the withdrawal agreement or the political declaration, while little Gibraltar—important though it is—was afforded advance sight of the agreement. The Scottish Government saw it only when the rest of us did.
My point is that Scotland’s marginalisation and its very weak bargaining position within the Union that is the United Kingdom have been very exposed by Brexit. After our failure in the independence referendum of 2014, 56 Scottish National party MPs were elected to this House, yet not one of our amendments to the Scotland Bill at that time got passed, despite the fact that we had 56 of the 59 seats in Scotland and 50% of the vote at that time. We were told that the wonderful Scotland Act was going to give us huge amounts of power and that we would have the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. I would like to ask any fair-minded person in this Chamber, and anyone watching, whether they think the sequence of events I have just described really makes it sound as though we have the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. Of course it does not, because devolution’s constitutional fragility has been revealed by Westminster’s assertion of control and attempts to repatriate powers here from Brussels, and by the disregard shown for Scotland’s preferences in the negotiations in Brussels.
The Brexit process has told Scottish voters a lot about the reality of devolution. It has told them that power devolved is indeed power retained, and that the United Kingdom is not the Union of equals that we were told it was before 2014 but a unitary state where devolved power is retrieved to the centre when convenient and where no one but the Conservative party, which represents only a minority of voters in Scotland, gets a say on major decisions over trade and foreign policy.
The experience of Ireland and Scotland during the Brexit process shows a significant contrast between the way in which nations that are member states of the European Union and nations that are members of this Union are treated. I heard the distinguished former Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland, John Bruton, speak recently. When he was asked about this by a member of the audience, he said that Scotland’s marginalisation within the United Kingdom would not happen in the European Union, and that if the European Union were taking a decision as drastic as Brexit and it had only four nations in it, all four nations would need to agree. In the UK, however, it does not matter what Scotland and Northern Ireland say. They can always be overridden by the English vote. That is not an anti-English comment; it is a comment on the constitution of the United Kingdom. If Scotland were a member state of the EU, even though we are a country of only 5.5 million people, we would have the same veto as Ireland over such a major decision, in the same way that the big countries have.
There is still a little bit of hope for Scotland, and it comes from the cross-party working that we have seen there, both in the Scottish Parliament today and from the group of politicians, of which I am proud to have been a member, who took a case to the Court of Justice of the European Union. We found out yesterday that the advocate general says that proceedings under article 50 can be unilaterally revoked. I was interested to hear the Prime Minister acknowledge earlier today, in response to a question of mine, that it is highly likely that the grand chamber of the Court will follow the advocate general’s opinion. It seems that Scotland, Scottish politicians and the Scottish courts are throwing this Parliament a lifeline that would enable it to get out of the madness of Brexit.
Even if we do throw that lifeline, the United Kingdom Parliament takes it, there is a second referendum, and the whole UK is smart enough, having been put in possession of the full facts, to vote to remain part of the European Union, do not think that that will be the Scottish question closed, because the Brexit process has wholly revealed our inferior status within the Union, and people will not forget that. The last two years have shown us that across the United Kingdom, the leave vote was won on the back of promises that have proved undeliverable. Many people say that those promises were lies, but whether they were or not, they have proved undeliverable.
It is hard for me to be fair to the Prime Minister because of the scorn that she has shown for Scottish democracy, but I will try: I do not think that it is because the Prime Minister is a bad negotiator that the deal is bad. The truth is that there is no better deal than the one the United Kingdom currently enjoys from within the European Union.
The Prime Minister at least tried to negotiate a deal. Others who led the leave movement have totally and utterly abdicated their responsibility. I watched with interest yesterday while the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) attempted and struggled to explain what he wants. I was none the wiser at the end of his speech. Let us not forget his partner in crime in the leave movement, who has now left the Treasury Bench: the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Why did he not take the job of Brexit Secretary when it was offered to him a couple of weeks ago? If someone desires something so much, why not take responsibility for delivering it? I think we all know the answer to that question.
Then, of course, there is the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). His insouciant appearances at the Exiting the European Union Committee were highly entertaining, but also deeply shocking. Now where is he? We have not seen him in the Chamber much in the last few days, but he is certainly not proposing any firm alternative to the deal.
The much maligned Court of Justice of the European Union, with the assistance of Scottish parliamentarians and the Scottish courts, has opened up new vistas of possibility for this Chamber. There is a chance of reversing the madness, but I accept that there will need to be a second vote. To achieve that, we will have to work cross-party in this Chamber. There is a lot of that going on already. May I respectfully suggest that parliamentarians in this Chamber look north to what is happening in Edinburgh this afternoon? They would see that it is possible for at least the Scottish National party, the Labour party, the Lib Dems and the Greens to work together. We know from this House that it is also possible for those parties to work with some Members on the Government Benches.
I want to make something crystal clear. Make no mistake about what would happen if there was a second vote across the UK, and England, in possession of the full facts on the reality of Brexit, again voted to leave—I am quite sure that Scotland would vote to remain. Scotland would not stand for that, and there would have to be a second independence referendum. This time, we know that we would have a far more sympathetic ear in Europe, even from the Spanish, supposedly Scotland’s great enemies. Their Foreign Minister said recently that if Scotland secedes from the UK constitutionally, he will not veto Scotland’s membership of the European Union.
As I said yesterday, I very much hope that when an independent Scotland tries to seek membership of the European Union, it will be remembered that it was Scottish parliamentarians and the Scottish courts who attempted to give the UK Parliament an escape route from Brexit. Even if the United Kingdom takes that escape route, the Brexit process has shown that the United Kingdom in its present form is not a Union in which Scotland can continue to function properly.
Joanna Cherry
No, I am coming to the end of my speech.
We have seen writ large during this process the difference between what it means to be a member of the United Kingdom and a member of the European Union. In the European Union, even small countries such as Ireland are equal partners with big countries such as Germany and France. In the United Kingdom, a small country such as Scotland is not an equal partner with England. A power devolved is a power retained, and Scottish democracy is always at the whim of the majority in this House. That is not tolerable.
Regardless of what happens with Brexit, which I very much hope is reversed for the whole United Kingdom, I hope that the Scots will soon take the opportunity to say that Scotland’s position in the UK Union is not tolerable. We want to take our seat at the top table in the European Union, where I very much hope we will eventually be an equal partner with England, because I hope England stays, too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. On account of the level of interest, an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches will now apply.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
I have always been a pragmatist on Europe and our membership of the EU, so my community and I wanted a practical way forward found following the referendum, but the Prime Minister’s negotiated deal, which we are being asked to vote on, while well intentioned, is not a practical way forward for Britain. It means rules without say. Instead of us taking back control, it gives away control. We will have less say over the rules that shape our lives. Worse, we will not be at the table when rules are set that will matter to Britain strategically—rules that might disadvantage the City or British industry if designed the wrong way. We are not taking back control; we are giving it away.
From my perspective, that sovereignty giveaway alone makes the deal unacceptable for Britain. In fact, I find it impossible to see any future Parliament ever updating fresh rules set at EU level that we have had to commit to, whether we liked them or not, so this deal will in the end be shown to be inoperable, most likely when we have a Government with a low or no majority, as at present. This fragile and unstable withdrawal agreement and political declaration will double up political instability, and translate it into economic instability, making things worse.
The PM’s deal is inoperable. I might welcome the Government’s assurances on EU workers—there are many in my community—but the detail is limited to the very short term. My constituents and people running businesses who come to my surgery want more than that; they want to know what happens beyond the so-called transition period. As others have said, it is disappointing that the Government have not yet set out their immigration plans for the House to take into consideration during today’s debate and at next week’s vote. This really matters to the very mixed community that I represent; it needs clarity.
On the Union, and Northern Ireland in particular, I am greatly concerned about the deal undermining the Good Friday agreement, and the Government’s weak approach to the backstop. I am concerned about the prospects for the re-emergence of a hard border in Northern Ireland, and about that becoming more of a challenge the more we diverge on product standards and regulations. I am concerned about the prospects of a Northern Ireland that risks being increasingly decoupled from the United Kingdom, and about how that could undermine the Union that is at the heart of the United Kingdom.
I am sure that others will talk about the economic projections. The effect on our economy and jobs is also of huge concern. The open-ended and uncertain period covered by the withdrawal agreement leaves this country utterly exposed as a rule taker, at a time when we face global economic uncertainty and an increased push for protectionism. During this period, the EU can decide whether we are breaking rules on state aid or have complied with them, and whether and how much we can be fined. It will be judge and jury. That is what we are being asked to support in the withdrawal agreement, and I cannot accept it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) compellingly set out, the timescale covered is hugely likely to be extended.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about rule-taking and sovereignty. Does she agree that the reason we have got into this position is that the whole Brexit debate has defined sovereignty as being purely about immigration and the movement of people, and not at all about the rules that govern our economy?
Justine Greening
I think people are now much more familiar with the trade-offs involved in Brexit. I will come back to that point later.
This thing is called a transition period or an implementation period, but a transition to what? The bottom line is that all we have on our destination is 26 pages of something called a political agreement. It is not binding, there is no detail and there are no guarantees or timescales. For anything that is comparable, such as a big infrastructure project, we would have a national policy statement, with perhaps 1,000 pages of detail for the House to consider. Here, we have just 26 pages.
A proposed deal on leaving the European Union is perhaps the ultimate national policy statement, yet we have virtually nothing. It is the political equivalent of being asked to jump out of a plane without knowing if your parachute is attached. It is like agreeing to move out of your house without knowing where you are going to live next, or not having agreed the sale price, but signing the contract anyway. None of us would do this in our own lives, yet the withdrawal agreement and political declaration ask us to do it on behalf of our country.
Overwhelmingly, my community does not support the deal. I will not, therefore, be able to back it. There are practical problems and there are problems of sovereignty, but there are democratic problems too, because this Brexit deal is not the Brexit that leave campaigners campaigned for or that leave voters voted for. It does not deliver on the result of the 2016 referendum. Leavers in my community reject it—I have had hundreds of emails and letters about that. Remainers reject it: they are left thinking, “What’s the point if leavers are not happy with the outcome of the referendum that they won? What is the point of leaving, simply to have all the same EU rules anyway?”
Forcing the Prime Minister’s deal through when it is universally unpopular will do nothing to heal the divisions in our country. In fact, it will be worse: it will kick the can down the road, which is exactly what the public expect politicians to do. It is a short-term political fix at the very time when we desperately need a long-term plan. People deserve better. That is why they are so frustrated.
Brexit has turned into a pantomime, it feels like groundhog day, and there is gridlock in Parliament. We have been talking about Brexit for years, and we all need to recognise that Ministers, Front Benchers and MPs will of course vote the way they think is right. I hope the Government do consider a free vote for Government Members, because we all represent very different communities with very different views. However, free vote or no free vote, I believe it is clear that there will be no majority in this House for any Brexit route forward—not for the Prime Minister’s deal; not for Labour’s ever-opaque deal, whatever it may be; not for no deal. There is no majority for anything, yet we have to bring this to a resolution. We cannot keep going round in circles forever. We have to solve Brexit so that we can get on to solving some of the issues that lie behind Brexit. Parliament now needs to take the steps that will allow us to get back on to a domestic agenda, which is what the public want.
Some Opposition Members might say, “Let’s have a general election,” but that would solve nothing, because Brexit is not about party politics. That is why the House has had so many challenges in grappling with Brexit-related legislation. This place is gridlocked. Giving a party political choice to people on a question that is not about party politics will not work. Labour is putting its own narrow party political interests ahead of the country’s vital need to resolve the path forward on Brexit.
I know that the route forward that is left might be unpalatable to many, including Labour and Conservative Front Benchers, but it may be the only viable route out of Parliament’s gridlock, and that is to do what we always end up doing in a democracy: ask the people. A referendum can be held in 22 weeks. We could hold one on 30 May.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend spoke about the importance of healing divisions. Many of my constituents are very concerned that a second referendum would make those divisions worse. What does she say to them?
Justine Greening
I do not think we can heal divisions by pretending that they are not there. I certainly do not think that it is democratically justifiable for the Government to ram through a version of Brexit that is not what people who voted for Brexit want. That, we have to agree, cannot be acceptable. Combine that with the fact that this House will be gridlocked on all the options—that is just the practical reality—and it is clear that we have to find another route forward.
I, for one, argue that a referendum is one way in which we can enable millions of leave voters who do not think the Government are delivering on the verdict of the referendum to have their say, in a way that they do not think is happening in this Parliament. We now have some clear-cut practical choices, and we should put them on the table for the people to decide.
Justine Greening
I will make some progress, given the time.
These are the options on offer for Britain: the Prime Minister’s deal; staying in on our existing terms; and, of course, having a cleaner break and leaving on World Trade Organisation terms, but then having a free trade agreement afterwards. This House should have the confidence to put the clear practical options that we now face back to the people. That is why I believe we should have a people’s vote.
This deal has united people in opposition to it. Nobody gets what they want. That is not compromise. Opposition to the Prime Minister’s deal on all fronts is not a virtue; it is the opposite. It goes in exactly the wrong direction and it will take us back to square one. Given that this deal is irreversible if we vote it through, this House owes it to future generations to make sure that we do not just hope that we are taking the right route forward on Brexit, but we know we are taking the right route forward on Brexit, and that means asking people for their view.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s deal is not really a deal at all; it is a stopgap. Parliament is being asked today to vote with a massive blindfold around our heads. We know not what our immigration arrangements will be, because the Government have not published the White Paper; we know not what our trade arrangements will be, because the political declaration is unclear; and we know not what our security co-operation will be, because the declaration is just too vague.
Last month—only last month—the Prime Minister told us that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed. In fact, most things have not been agreed at all. The Prime Minister is asking us to walk out the door, slamming it behind us, without any idea where we are heading or even where we will rest our heads tonight. I think that that is irresponsible, because it is not just that we are blindfolded about where we are heading; as the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) said in a very thoughtful speech, it weakens our negotiating hand in sorting out the future and establishing where it is we will end up.
The chief executive of Haribo in my constituency said in response to the transition proposals:
“Two years is significant to our supply chain decisions so this would be very welcome, but the uncertainty would just be delayed… Everything that is an extension of the delay is only useful if it is clear what will happen at the end of the extension, so we can prepare for it.”
The problem with the political declaration is that, as paragraph 28 admits, there is a whole “spectrum” of checks and controls. Depending on which paragraph one reads, there could be rules of origin checks or alignment with the common tariff, and the hit to our national income could be as bad as 7%. Depending on which paragraph one reads, it could be nearly Norway, it could be back to Chequers, it could be off to Canada or it could be far beyond—we simply do not know.
On security, things are not much clearer. The continued access that is promised to the Prüm fingerprints database and to shared passenger name records is welcome, but the absence of any reference to the crucial Schengen Information System II European criminal database, which our Border Force and police currently check more than 500 million times a year, is deeply troubling, as is the absence of any reference to the European criminal records information system, or ECRIS. Those tools are used to catch criminals, stop terrorists, monitor sex offenders, find dangerous weapons and stop serious criminals entering the country. The police have been clear that our country is less safe without those measures, and I do not think that this House should be voting for things that could make our country less safe.
The Government also need to be clear with us about the impact of all that, because the EU’s resistance to committing to allowing us access to SIS II is frankly reprehensible. However, that is the EU’s current position, and I fear that this deal weakens our ability to sort this problem out in future and to get the commitment that we need, which will be in all our interests. The Home Secretary said, “Well, we didn’t have these measures a few years ago, so this won’t cause a huge problem,” but the truth is that the security and cross-border criminal threats that we face now are much greater than they were a few years ago, and our police and agencies are running to catch up. Our job here should be to support them in that work, not to make it harder for them or to hold them back.
Hilary Benn
Does my right hon. Friend know why SIS II and ECRIS are not referred to in the political declaration? Is it because the Government did not try to get them included, or is it that they asked and the EU refused? If the EU refused, does that not reinforce her point?
Yvette Cooper
That is right, because my understanding is that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary did ask to have those measures included, because they understand how important they are, but the EU continues to resist. I think that that is wrong and irresponsible, but if we are going to have an ongoing negotiation on this, we should do that from a position of strength and not by weakening our position, which I am afraid that this deal does.
What are we going to say to victims of crime in the weeks after we lose access to the SIS II database if the police or Border Force fail to stop a dangerous offender who is on the SIS II database and known to other countries? What happens if we do not let the police have that information and then the offender commits another crime? Perhaps the most troubling thing of all is that there is no security backstop in this deal. Unlike for Northern Ireland and for trade, there is no backstop to continue security co-operation until a future security treaty or overarching treaty is agreed. If the transition period runs out and we have not agreed such things, we will lose vital capabilities. Given how long it takes to negotiate complex arrangements around extradition and how long it will take to ratify a full treaty, that is another irresponsible decision for us to take.
On immigration, the proposals that we still need to see will affect not just EU citizens wanting to live and work here, but UK citizens wanting to live and work in the EU and, obviously, the arrangements for business recruitment. If the Home Office does genuinely have an immigration White Paper all ready to go that it is planning to publish later in December after the vote, it must realise what a signal of contempt denying Parliament the chance to see it before this vote would be. If the Home Office has that White Paper, it should publish it this week so that Members have time to see it before the vote.
I support amendment (c), in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), because it opposes not only the Prime Minister’s deal, but no deal. I agreed with the Home Secretary when he said earlier that there are significant security risks from no deal. There are clearly economic risks. One local factory told me that the cost of its imports will double in price if we go to WTO tariffs and another said that its European parent company would be under pressure to move production to continental factories instead. On security, however, the threats are even greater, because the police and Border Force would immediately lose access to crucial information that they use to keep us safe, including legal agreements that underpin ongoing investigations and trials, all of which could immediately be put at risk, and the European arrest warrants that we have out on the Skripal suspects. Even if hon. Members do not care about stockpiling medicines or lorry parks on Kent’s motorways or the Bank of England’s warnings about recessions, I hope that they will take seriously the warnings from the National Crime Agency and the National Police Chiefs’ Council about the risk that no deal will make us less safe.
The Prime Minister also has a responsibility to be ready if and when this vote goes down, given the strong views against it. She must be ready to take the opportunity to go immediately to Brussels and to request an extension of article 50 so that everyone has time to draw breath. I know that extending the process would be painful for all sides and that no one wants to be the person calling for it, but we must be honest that the process will carry on regardless. We have to start behaving like grownups and actually recognise the serious things that we are going to have to do.
We will need time to build a consensus around any possible way forward. I think that is possible to do, but I recognise the hugely different views in this place and across the country. This deal is flawed and makes us weaker, but we need to take the time to build a consensus on the way forward. In the end, that is why we are here. The Prime Minister has tried to find compromise, but she has done so without reaching out, without trying to build consensus, without trying to consult, and without even giving this House the chance to vote on what the objectives of the negotiations might be. We cannot do something this big and this hard with this many long-lasting consequences without building some consensus. That is the task for us now. It is going to be hard, but that is the test of our politics. I believe we are up to it, but we are going to have to prove it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. On account of the level of interest and the fact of interventions taking time, the time limit will have to be reduced to seven minutes per Back Bencher immediately after the next speaker. Mr Shapps will be the last to have the opportunity of eight minutes.
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Broadly speaking I believe in international co-operation—whether the United Nations, NATO or, indeed, the European Union—because a rules-based world is a safer world. However, I also recognise that being a member of a club has advantages and disadvantages, because members must compromise over some sovereignty and pool some resources. While in Cabinet, I led a number of trade missions to south-east Asia, including Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan, but it was in Hanoi that the compromise struck me most. Having negotiated over some communist paperwork preventing British beer being landed at the port, we then got down to the further 20 items on the agenda, and the only thing that I could say to the Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister was, “These are all very interesting issues, and I’ll take them back to the European Trade Commissioner,” from whom some Members may not be surprised to hear we never heard again.
When it came to the 2016 referendum, I could see both sides of the argument, and it took me right up to the ballot box itself to decide that I would vote remain, which I did. My decision is not dissimilar to that of many other citizens in our country—certainly my Welwyn Hatfield constituents—who also voted along national lines. The argument could be said almost to reveal the fact that the division was 52:48—half and half—with lots of people seeing both sides. That has led to the idea that we should leave the EU to honour the result but that we should perhaps not leave too much lest we fail to represent the 48% who were for remain. I fear that this Government’s anxiety to do just that is, in the end, in danger of pleasing no one—certainly not our fishermen, who face another two years in an EU-wide catch zone, nor our colleagues in Northern Ireland, who fear separate treatment, nor those in other parts of the UK, who either see what the Northern Ireland exemption is going to bring and want it or fear that the differences will help to carve up the country.
We have therefore agreed a backstop designed to protect against the construction of a physical border on the island of Ireland that nobody wants and nobody says that they will build. However, that backstop has become the real deal breaker for this withdrawal agreement, and I will explain why. As MPs, we understand that there is a simple principle that no Parliament can bind its successors. Unlike other countries, we have never attempted to codify our constitution in a single written document that is later nigh on impossible to change, so not for us an unbreakable second amendment made in 1791 that now means guns kill 33,000 people a year in the United States. I would argue that our unwritten constitution has served us well in providing flexibility, which occurs all the time. There is one exception, which arises when we sign international treaties.
Treaties have a special status. These are laws that, when we pass them, we essentially agree we will never change without first coming to an international agreement to do so. They tend to be about human rights or chemical weapons, so the United Kingdom does not usually have a way in which it can walk away unilaterally, but we will leave a series of treaties made with the EU next March. Even then, it will only be because another treaty, the Lisbon treaty, gives us permission to do so through article 50.
That brings us to the legally binding withdrawal agreement, which is, in effect, a new treaty, complete with a backstop lacking a unilateral exit clause. “But don’t worry,” some say, “we will never fall into that backstop.” My question is what happens if we do? Our history suggests that the chances of our unilaterally walking away are about on a level with America changing its second amendment, so the backstop is really something that we will never unilaterally leave.
Some people say, “But we will use best endeavours on both sides, and we will make sure that we never end up in that backstop in the first place.” Yet, as every businessperson knows, we should never sign a contract if we do not know what the termination clause will be. I find the issue troubling, so I have been mugging up on “best endeavours” over quite a few mugs of coffee, and I can tell the House that the phrase has an official meaning:
“‘Best endeavours’ places upon a party the obligation to use all efforts necessary to fulfil a contract. It is a stricter obligation than the lesser ‘reasonable endeavours.’”
That may sound promising but, alas, no, because best endeavours is by no means an absolute obligation. The concept of reasonableness still applies.
For example, satisfying best endeavours would not necessarily require the EU to put itself in a detrimental position. To take a real-life example, if a construction firm were asked to complete an office block by Christmas but things did not go to plan during the contract, it could do what was reasonable—it could even put more people on site—but if it could not reach the conclusion of building the office block before Christmas, it may none the less be said to have used all best endeavours, even though the outcome was not what anyone had expected.
In other words, we could end up in this backstop for ever, and that would be that. Our country’s entire trading future would instead be decided by five people—two from the EU, two from this country and one individual whom we do not know and whom we have never met. That individual, who certainly is not democratically elected to this place, would make the final decision, so our country’s future would be determined by that individual.
I find it difficult to support legislation that effectively removes power from this House and from this country, so for the first time as a Member of Parliament I find myself at odds with my own Government. With no sign of a solution, and certainly not in the Attorney General’s legal advice that was finally released today, I am afraid that I am left contemplating my vote on the withdrawal agreement next Tuesday. I am currently minded to vote against it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am afraid that the time limit will now be seven minutes.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
Sixty per cent. of people in my Blyth Valley constituency voted to leave Europe in the referendum. I have been voting against Europe for all of the 31 years I have been in this place, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). We do not like the idea of Europe because it is not a socialist Europe as far as we are concerned, and of course it is bureaucratic and undemocratic. These commissioners are unelected and they have all the power, and we disagree with that. We also disagree with the united states of Europe, which would be disastrous for this country if it ever happened. My opinion on joining the euro goes without saying. Some on my side would join the euro, because Tony Blair said on television the other day that he may have wanted to join the euro. If not for Gordon Brown, perhaps we would now be in the euro.
This new treaty is now on our plate. We have heard this afternoon about immigration, and we have heard about the White Paper. It was supposed to be coming in March 2017, and then it was supposed to be coming later. It was supposed to be coming this week, before the vote. Now we are told that we might get it at the end of December. I have a funny feeling we will not see it at the end of this year, although we might see it at the beginning of next year.
All that immigration has been in this country is cheap labour. We have to be honest about that. People have been brought in, especially on the farms, as cheap labour. I remember, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will remember, when the Poles came in and came down the pit just after the war.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
It was different. It is the only occasion I can remember in my life when people came from abroad and were not here to make money for their masters. When the Poles and Lithuanians —they were really called displaced persons—came over to Britain, a lot of them worked in the pits. We had 700 pits then, and they were up north as well as in Derbyshire and elsewhere.
The reason why it was different is that they were paid the same money as the miners who were indigenous to Clay Cross, Parkhouse and Glapwell, and all the rest. Not only that, they had to join the trade union, which is why it is different today. When Mike Ashley comes along and gets 300 Poles to work at his factory in Shirebrook, they are there to make money for Mike Ashley, and only him. That is the difference.
Mr Campbell
How can I follow that? That is exactly what I was going to say.
Coming back to reality, when I first saw this treaty I knew what I was going to do. I was going to vote against it, and obviously I have not changed my mind. A lot of people who were perhaps going to vote for it have changed their mind and are now not going to vote for it. We have a treaty here that the Government will try to pass on Tuesday—I do not think they will pass it—and they have all the negotiations to do afterwards. They have to negotiate on the fisheries, but I am not sure about the fisheries because we have sacked all the fishermen. We are going to get all this water, but we have no fishermen to fish it, because they have all gone. We have made them all redundant, and we have got rid of their boats.
As we have heard, it is imperative that we have a deal with the EU on the law and the security of this country. We have not got one, yet we are expected to vote on Tuesday. No wonder nobody is going to vote for this deal. What is going to happen after the deal? What will happen when we turn it down? Where will we go from there? I am not going to vote for a no deal, as it would be criminal if we came out of the EU without any sort of deal. There is no chance of me voting for a no deal if that comes on to the Floor of the House. So where do we go from there? What happens if this House cannot make its mind up and decide? I do not like referendums, because everybody then wants another one, as we have seen in Holland, France and Germany, and with the Scots. They all wanted another one. It is hard for me to say, “Well, if this House cannot agree and make a decision, we are going to have to ask the people.” I do not want a referendum, because I do not believe in them, but we did have one. There is something about referendums, because people did vote in this one—they voted to leave. Of course the Tories keep telling me that, and they are right to say that. What happens if we have a referendum and the result is the same percentage voting to remain after that? Do the leavers march the streets, with banners, and say, “We want another one”?
Mr Campbell
We have had democracy, and democracy said that we were leaving. Yet again, it appears that democracy is only where we have two referendums, and that is just not on. We must take the result of the first referendum and stick by it.
Turning back to the treaty, which is not very good, we will be in the backstop for donkey’s years. Do we think the EU is going to let us out of the backstop? Of course it will not. As for the negotiators in Europe on the matters that have not been negotiated, I would not trust them as far as I could throw them. If we did accept this deal on Tuesday, they would just throw it all away and say, “There you are. We’ve got ’em. Leave it the way it is.” That is the situation Parliament is in. [Interruption.] Of course I want a general election, but I know that turkeys do not like an early Christmas, so we are not going to have one. We have to get two thirds and we will never get two thirds out of that side—we will get it from these Benches; we will get a two-thirds vote, but they will not, and so we will never get it. As I say, these are interesting times. One Prime Minister said that a week in politics is a long time, but two days is now a long time.
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
We would not be having this debate today if Parliament had not asserted, earlier this year, its right to express its views clearly on the deal that has been brought back to us. It does not, however, follow from that that Parliament should have to take on the responsibility of designing or redesigning the deal. I do not believe Parliament should overreach itself in that respect. What Parliament can do is set the boundaries for a deal and express its view on the deal, and I hope we will be able to do that on Tuesday.
Equally, because of the amendment that I supported yesterday, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), it should be very clear what is not acceptable. In my view, no deal is not acceptable. It is my judgment that no deal would be highly irresponsible. Having no agreement on trade and security would be damaging to our business interests, and we must have a deal properly in place before we leave. So I do not support no deal. I also have to say to some of my hon. Friends that I am not convinced by the arguments for having another referendum. Of course referendums are divisive, but that is not the problem. The problem is that I do not see how a referendum could be decisive and could secure a sufficient consensus to put this issue to bed for a decent period of time.
If we are to respect the referendum that we did have, and if, as my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), said in an excellent and powerful speech, we are to surrender our vote, our voice and our veto straightaway and immediately pay over this huge sum of £39 billion, we need a deal that is worth all the risks of not knowing how it is going to work out. We do not have that at the moment. Instead, we are confronted with a completely vacuous political declaration. In my view, we need something much better and much firmer if we are to take that decisive step at the end of March.
Sir Michael Fallon
I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I continue.
I would like to see the deal improved in four crucial and already well-known respects. First, on the backstop, a sovereign country cannot be placed in a position in which we are denied, in the end, a unilateral right of exit. That is all the more important because the protocol acknowledges that the backstop might remain under “alternative arrangements”, even in part. Others have already made the case as to why a backstop should remain, and I find that argument rather odd. We have been told this week that the European Union does not like the backstop any more than we do and that Ministers in other countries do not actually want the backstop to remain. If that is the case, why should they not agree that it is in everybody’s interests—theirs and ours—to set a date by which the backstop at least falls away? I am not encouraged by all this lawyerly talk of “good faith”, “best endeavours” and endless arbitration. If we are going to have a backstop, which I do not like, let us have a date and set the clock ticking.
Secondly, the absence in the political declaration of any commitment whatsoever to the frictionless trade that the Prime Minister promised us is not acceptable, unless we have some clearer idea of the extent to which some freedom of movement will be required and of the extent to which there will be areas beyond state aid and procurement where we will have to respect European Union competition policy. The Attorney General told us on Monday that this is one of the “outer boundaries” that will have to be considered, but he did not attempt to set those boundaries. We need to be much clearer about exactly what the European Union is likely to accept, in respect of both the skills cap that we are contemplating and the competition policy that we will have to accept.
Thirdly, on the extent to which we will be allowed an independent trade policy, the political declaration is at least clear on this point: our future economic relationship must
“be consistent with the Union’s principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union”.
That does not leave us any clarity on whether we will be allowed to reduce much or even part of our common external tariff. Indeed, the Attorney General told us that we cannot have an independent trade policy and belong to a conventional customs union. Again, that commits us to complying with one boundary set by the European Union without any clear understanding of where the other might be set.
Finally, there is Northern Ireland. If a different regulatory framework is to continue—there are currently some elements of difference—it is clear to me that, inside our own single market, that can be done only with the continuing consent of the Province itself, or in other words of the Executive and the Assembly. The agreement should have been explicit in that regard. There may well be further checks that would enhance the protection of the whole island, but they can be put in place only with the agreement of all communities in Northern Ireland.
Without those improvements, this so-called deal is a gamble: we put all our cards on the table and all our money, and we wait for another two years for the European Union to set the rules of the game. That is a risk too far.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
In this crisis, there are many temptations to find someone other than ourselves to blame, to say “I told you so”, to exploit the situation for personal ambition, or to cry betrayal. We need to resist those temptations. Indeed, we need to act in the national interest. We are on a short 100-day journey to no deal, but there are turnings that we could take off this dangerous road, which would otherwise lead us to doing a Thelma and Louise on 29 March.
I admire the Prime Minister for many things. She and I coped well together as we toured the working men’s clubs of North West Durham in 1992, on our way to being crushed by Baroness Hilary Armstrong. Then, as now, I was impressed by the Prime Minister’s fortitude in the face of certain defeat. The one thing that I do not really admire her for is her attempt to hoodwink the British people into thinking that the only choice that we have in this vote is between a bad deal and no deal. She knows that that is not true, and to keep repeating it is beneath her.
We have six options. None of them is great, but some are better than others. First, we can accept the PM’s deal, which kicks the can down the road and keeps us thinking and talking about Brexit for many years to come.
Wera Hobhouse
Does my hon. Friend not agree that no deal is absolutely off the table? It must be off the table.
Tim Farron
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The damage that it would do to our economy would be utterly immense.
If the Prime Minister’s deal is passed, it kicks the can down the road for a number of years, and we carry on talking about Brexit into the foreseeable future. It traps the UK into EU rules, but with no say over what those rules are. It is the absolute opposite, then, of taking back control. Millions of those who voted leave would feel that they had been betrayed. Meanwhile, the Northern Ireland backstop seriously threatens the future of the Union, and every family and every business in this country will be hit by our exit from the single market. If Members think that we should honour the wishes of the British people, they cannot vote for this deal. If they think that we should protect the interests of the British people, they cannot vote for this deal.
Option two, which we have already covered, is that we leave with no deal. The upside of that is that we would—to use the vernacular—take back control. We would not be bound by EU rules or judgments, but the hit to our economy would mean that what sovereignty we would regain from the EU, we would lose immediately to the international financial markets, with all the impact that that would have on my constituents and the constituents of every other Member. There are already 2,200 children living below the poverty line in my community. I will not vote for any course of action that puts even one more child or one more family, let alone thousands more, in poverty. That is why I will vote against no deal.
A third option is that the Prime Minister has the courage of her convictions and puts the deal to the country in a referendum. Let us not kid ourselves: like most referendums, a referendum on the deal—a people’s vote—has the capacity to be divisive. However, I disagree with the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), as I believe that it would be decisive. Whichever option was chosen by the people would come into effect without further debate or delay.
Option four might be an early general election. There are 2,700 hours until Brexit. The country will not forgive us if we waste 1,000 of those hours on a self-indulgent general election. The same applies to option five, which is that the Prime Minister is sacked as the leader of her party. Again, that would be seen as the actions of the self-indulgent, the vain and the personally ambitious—the very antithesis of the national interest.
A sixth option is to withdraw article 50 and to renegotiate. As the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) said earlier, we leapt from the aircraft when we triggered article 50 without checking whether we had a parachute, and we are now within a few metres of hitting the ground with a great big splat. There is now a miraculous option to get back in the plane. We could withdraw article 50 and allow the Prime Minister to renegotiate a better deal, which she certainly could do if she changed her red lines. She could, for instance, seek membership of the single market, which is not dissimilar to the arrangement that Norway enjoys. The Prime Minister’s decision to rule out the single market was an entirely arbitrary and self-imposed choice made not to reflect the will of the people, but to placate the European Research Group in her own party. It should now be crystal clear to her that those folks are unplacatable, so she should instead seek to find a consensus with people who might be a little more reasonable.
I am a reasonable man. I am no EU flag-waving federalist, no apologist for all that emanates from Brussels, I do not have “Ode to Joy” as my ringtone, I do not know a single word of Esperanto, and, in 2008, I resigned from the Front Bench over the Lisbon treaty, but I have never been more convinced that Britain’s future must lie in Europe and that to leave would be a tragic, tragic mistake. I do not have time to go into all the reasons, but given that the focus of today’s debate is security, let us remember that 11 of the countries in the European Union today were once behind the iron curtain. Six of those countries had nuclear weapons on their soil pointed right at this city. Just as the nations that fought two bloody wars in the 20th century sit together, so do those from either side of the cold war divide. If that was the only reason for staying in the European Union, that would do for me. How short must memory be to cast that away?
I spend a lot more time in Westmorland than I do in Westminster, so last night I listened to my constituents and did my sums to find out how people in my communities think we should vote in this debate. Here are the votes of the Westmorland jury: 3.5% want us to leave with no deal; 10% want us to leave with the Prime Minister’s deal; 17% want us to remain in the EU without a people’s vote; and 68% want a people’s vote.
After taking the time to listen to people’s motives, it is clear to me that many of those who want a people’s vote hold a similar view to me—that referendums are poisonous and dangerous. If we did not see another referendum for the rest of our lives, it would be far too soon. Nevertheless, we cannot let what began with democracy end with a Whitehall-Westminster-Brussels stich-up. If the people voted for our departure, they must also have the right to vote for our destination, and to choose a better destination than the one that the Prime Minister presents to them, if they consider it not to be good enough.
This deal fails all its own internal tests. It would mean that we were run by European rules but without any ability to have a say over them, which would make us poorer, weaker and less safe. It would divide our Union, so it would make us less British. I love my country, so I will reject any deal that harms it. I reject no deal and this bad deal. There are better options; the Prime Minister should take them.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I am grateful to be called in this important and serious debate, ahead of what I think most people expect to be the defeat of the proposed EU withdrawal agreement next Tuesday night.
Like so many of my colleagues, I am currently receiving hundreds of emails from constituents urging us to vote down this deal, for all kinds of different and contradictory reasons: to kill Brexit altogether; to get a second referendum; to get a softer Brexit through some kind of Norway-style deal; to get a harder Brexit or a real Brexit; to get a Canada-style deal or the WTO option; or to get rid of the Prime Minister and get somebody else in charge who genuinely believes in the Brexit project. There are so many different reasons to vote it down that we would cover all our bases by going through the No Lobby next Tuesday night. But the message I would like to give to the House, particularly to my colleagues, is that voting this deal down next Tuesday will resolve nothing at all. It might be the easiest thing to do. It might even be the smart political thing to do. But it will not take us further forward and it will resolve nothing at all.
One of the consistent themes of the negotiating process over the last 18 months has been how the sheer complexity and, at times, difficulty of the Brexit negotiations have increasingly jarred against the perfect theory and almost beautiful and optimistic simplicity of some of the leave campaign slogans that we heard during the referendum campaign in 2016. There was a beautiful and optimistic simplicity about the message of taking back control by being out rather than in. Yet as we have seen during these negotiations, the real world is much more complicated. One thing I have learned during the 14 months that I have been a member of the Exiting the European Union Committee is that there is nothing simple or straightforward about the business of withdrawing the UK from the EU after 40 years of membership.
The former New York governor Mario Cuomo used to like saying:
“You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.”
That was not an acceptance of duplicity in politics, but a recognition that, when it comes to serious and responsible government, the outcomes are always less elegant and less attractive than some of the easy campaign slogans.
As the increasing realisation has set in that Brexit is a more challenging and difficult process than many would have liked to have believed at the start, so the blame game sets in. We hear people lashing out so easily against the Prime Minister, saying things like, “It’s all her fault. This is due to her personality. She’s not tough enough. She should have been stronger. She should have been a real believer and had real faith in Brexit.” And we hear accusations against Olly Robbins and the senior civil servants: “If only we had senior civil servants who weren’t part of the metropolitan elite and who shared the general views of the real British public, we would have a more perfect Brexit option on the table in front of us.”
The truth is that we have a less than perfect Brexit deal in front of us because that was always going to be the case. I say to my Conservative colleagues that the deal on the table is not the Prime Minister’s deal—it is our deal. It already has all of our names attached to it. That is because it has been shaped, fundamentally, not by the Prime Minister’s personality and not by Olly Robbins, but by decisions that we all took as a governing party. We all agreed to the timetable of the article 50 process with its hard deadline; we signed up to that. We all stood on a manifesto last year that included the contradictory red lines that perpetuated the complete fiction that we could have all the same benefits of membership of the single market and the customs union but none of the obligations that come from that. That manifesto embodied those red lines. We are responsible for the way that this deal has been shaped, so we will share in the responsibility for what happens next.
If this deal gets voted down next week, we know—it is already clear from the first day or so of debate that we have had—that no one is sure what happens next, other than a further period of political uncertainty and turmoil, and that cannot be in our nation’s interests.
I will wrap up by saying something about my own constituency, Preseli Pembrokeshire, which voted 55:45 to leave the European Union. On the night of the referendum result, I promised, even though I had been a remain campaigner, that I would respect the outcome of the referendum, and that I would campaign and work towards the outcome being implemented, but in a way that was responsible and that sought to protect key economic interests that affect the lives of the communities in my constituency. My constituency is one of the peripheral areas of the United Kingdom. We are closer to Ireland than we are to England. We have ferry ports that connect to Ireland. We have oil refining, gas imports, farming and fishing—so many economic interests—and how we leave the EU really matters to the livelihoods of people in those sectors.
One particular sector that I want to draw attention to is oil refining. The Valero oil refinery in Pembroke is probably our largest employer—it employs 1,000 people directly and indirectly through contractors. Having sat down with the general manager of that plant a few weeks ago, I can say to the House that there are very serious and specific reasons why a no deal outcome would be very bad news indeed for that major employer in my constituency. No serious Member of Parliament for Preseli Pembrokeshire could vote for something that could lead to a no deal outcome and look their constituents in the eye again. In my time as MP, I have been through one refinery closure four years ago when the Murco refinery closed, and it was horrible. I have friends who lost their jobs; I have staff members whose family members who lost their jobs. I do not want to see that again.
How we leave the EU really matters. Yes, this is an imperfect deal; it could have been so much better if we had used our time much better as a Government and a party over the past two years. But I am going to vote for it because I believe in doing Brexit in a responsible way that protects the interests of my constituents and abides by the outcome of the referendum in 2016.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). I agree with him on at least one thing—there is nothing simple or straightforward about what we are confronted with here.
I want to spend the time available to me talking about Brexit and Knowsley. People might say, “Why Knowsley?” Why do I have to talk about Knowsley in connection with Brexit? The reason is that in the 2016 referendum the people of Knowsley voted in exactly the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom—52:48—to leave the European Union, so, in a way, it is a microcosm of the rest of the United Kingdom. Why did the people of Knowsley vote in the way they did? When I was out on the street campaigning to remain, three reasons came up continually. The first was immigration; I will say a little more about that in a moment. The second was sovereignty, or taking back control. The third was that they wanted us to control our own finances properly. I want to deal with each of those in turn.
First, on immigration, some of it—not all of it—was xenophobic in nature, with people addressing it as, “We don’t want to be that country. We don’t like multiculturalism” and that kind of thing. People also gave other reasons, one of which was a feeling that immigration was putting too much pressure on public services. In Knowsley, we have the lowest level of immigration in the country, and although we have pressures on public services, immigration has nothing to do with those pressures. But that was one of the reasons they gave.
Another reason people gave—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), as so often, touched on it—was a feeling that those coming from eastern Europe in particular were undercutting wages in some of the industries that operate in my constituency. Whether that is right or wrong, that is what people felt at the time. As it happens, I think we need to have a more intelligent debate about immigration than we have had so far, so that people really understand the nature of it, but we have not had that debate, and we certainly had not had it at that point.
Secondly, I will not labour the point on sovereignty, because it has been made repeatedly by others, but the reality is that we are ceding more control than we are gaining, so the deal does not meet that requirement. Thirdly, on the issue of repatriating the money we spend in Europe and economic control, frankly, all the evidence is that it will go in the opposite direction. The reality is that everything the people in my constituency voted for when they voted to leave is not going to happen with this deal. This deal does not meet the requirements they set, and I think most Members are conscious of that.
Before I conclude, I want to talk about what I know of opinion in my constituency at the moment. Like every other Member of this House, I have had hundreds of people contact me in the last few weeks, and they fall into three distinct categories. The first is people who, like me, voted to remain, and they want us to have a second referendum, so that they can have a go at determining a different outcome. The second category is people who voted to leave, are still convinced of that and are willing for us to come out at any cost, with no deal at all. The third category, which is really interesting, is people—some of them remainers, some of them leavers—who are saying, “We’ve already had a referendum. We should get on with it.” The Prime Minister has been using that mantra over the last few weeks. The problem, given that the deal does not represent any of the things that those people voted for, is that getting on with it means getting on with something that virtually everyone in the House concedes is an unsatisfactory outcome.
I think we would all concede that those who contact MPs to tell them what they think are not necessarily typical of opinion in any given constituency. Nevertheless, that is one signal I have to go by. I got another signal when I went to speak on this issue at the All Saints sixth-form in Kirkby in my constituency six weeks ago. In the middle of it, for some reason, I decided to take a straw poll. Although Kirkby is a traditional white working-class area, the students overwhelmingly voted to remain. They wanted some means by which they could remain in the European Union, and that highlights the generational difficulty we have.
I also attended an event over the summer that I organised with the help of the local chamber of commerce, for local businesses that trade with Europe. From big companies like Jaguar Land Rover, down to a small company that deals in precious metal, they wanted a deal that assured their future trading relationship with the European Union. I do not think this deal provides that.
I am left with the view that this can only be sorted in one of two ways. The first is a general election. That does not seem likely to happen, but it is one way of doing it. The second option is another referendum. I believe that one or both of those, or even a combination of the two, is the only way forward, because there is no majority in the House for anything else.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
One of the things we are seeking to do as we leave the European Union is to make sure that we do not have a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The way I think we should solve that—I think this is the Government’s position—is to have a free trade agreement. The problem I have is the backstop in the withdrawal agreement.
The Prime Minister was clear that a backstop that treated Northern Ireland differently and put a border in the Irish sea was unacceptable and not something any British Prime Minister could sign off. I am afraid to say that she has done exactly that. I was not 100% convinced of that, based on my own analysis of the withdrawal agreement. I am just a humble accountant, not an expert lawyer. This morning, however, I read the legal advice—the letter from the Attorney General to the Prime Minister about the legal effect of the protocol. Paragraph 7 is plain and clear:
“NI remains in the EU’s Customs Union, and will apply the whole of the EU’s customs acquis, and the Commission and the CJEU will continue to have jurisdiction”
over it, and:
“Goods passing from GB to NI will be subject to a declaration process.”
That means that, if a company in my constituency wins an order with a business in Northern Ireland—in our own country—it will have to have the deal signed off by a British bureaucrat, and if our rules in Great Britain have deviated from those in Northern Ireland, it may be told that it cannot ship that order to a part of our own country. I do not find that acceptable. I think the Prime Minister was right when she said that no UK Prime Minister should sign off such a deal. I still stick to that, which is why I will not be able to support the withdrawal agreement as it is currently set out. This is the first time in my 13 years in this House that I will not be able to support my party. I regret that. I also regret being put in a position where, in order to hold to the promises that we made in our general election manifesto to the people of our country last year, I am forced to vote against a proposition put before this House by my Prime Minister. But I think it is important in politics that we keep our promises because that is how we maintain the trust of the British people. Breaking our promises is not something we should do.
Furthermore, the backstop is also of concern for those who may not be concerned about Northern Ireland because of the indefinite nature of it. The Attorney General set out earlier this week the indefinite nature of the customs union if the backstop is triggered. I fear that that will critically weaken our negotiating position as we negotiate the future trade relationship, which I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) is the thing that is really important. But if we cripple our negotiating position, we will end up with a very bad future relationship, which will stick with us not just for years, but potentially for decades.
The legal advice we have now seen—published this morning—is, again, clear. The Attorney General makes it clear that
“despite statements in the Protocol that it is not intended to be permanent, and the clear intention of the parties that it should be replaced by alternative, permanent arrangements, in international law the Protocol would endure indefinitely until a superseding agreement took its place”.
He also makes it clear that there is no mechanism that will enable us to leave the UK-wide customs union “without a subsequent agreement” and that
“remains the case even if parties are still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believe that talks have…broken down and there is no prospect of a future relationship agreement.”
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
If in this country somebody had a contract of employment where only one of the parties could end the agreement, or if they had a business contract where only one party could end the agreement, it would be indenture and would be struck down by the British courts, yet we are contemplating an international treaty where that is the case.
Mr Harper
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is not a contract I would be willing to sign and I am afraid that is why I cannot sign up to this withdrawal agreement. It is also the case that the withdrawal agreement will hand over about £39 billion in an unconditional way. I think that most people who carry out negotiations generally do not hand over all the money until they have a deal. We should make the money conditional on both getting a good deal and getting a good deal on a timely basis. If we were to do that, we would get a good deal on a timely basis.
There may be before the House amendments to the motions and extra words may be added to the political declaration, but what we are being asked to vote on is a legally binding treaty—the withdrawal agreement. Unless that is changed, words added to the political declaration and any extra words on the motions before this House are legally meaningless. I do not think they are capable of persuading colleagues who are concerned about the withdrawal agreement that they have significantly changed the position.
Stephen Crabb
My right hon. Friend is making a clear and compelling speech. Given that it has been pretty clear for 12 months that the withdrawal agreement would include a Northern Irish backstop and that that would have some teeth to it, and that there was no way that the EU or the Irish Government were going to agree to a backstop with an end date because then it would not be a backstop, how does he propose that we overcome that problem? What does voting down the deal next Tuesday do to make a solution to the problem he sets out any more likely?
Mr Harper
First, there were two aspects to the joint report that was signed. We have delivered one of them in the withdrawal agreement. The other one was about ensuring that unfettered access to the United Kingdom market remained in place. That may well be true for Northern Ireland businesses, but it is not true for businesses in Great Britain. So we have not delivered, according to the Attorney General’s advice, on that joint report in this withdrawal agreement.
The Irish Government, the British Government and the EU have all said that they do not want to see a hard border or infrastructure—we are all committed to that and we are all supposed to be committed to reaching a deal on a future relationship—so I do not see any need to have the backstop in this deal. It is clear to me that, if the backstop remains in the deal, the Prime Minister will not be able to get it through the House. If the Cabinet’s deal is defeated—this is the Cabinet’s agreement, not just the Prime Minister’s—the Prime Minister should go to the European Council at the end of next week and say that any deal with the backstop will not be passed by this House and that they should think again. I think they will reflect on the fact that, if the fifth largest economy in the world and a close defence and security partner is leaving the EU, they have a choice: do we leave with a good, positive relationship on which we can build in the months and years to come, or do we leave with a spirit of rancour and discord? That is something our European partners will have to reflect on. I hope that, if they reflect on that, they will reach a wise and sensible decision and we can reach a sensible agreement.
My final point is aimed more at my Conservative colleagues. Because of the importance of Northern Ireland, my colleagues need to reflect on the fact that, if the deal were voted through next week, it is my belief, having listened carefully to what they have said, that the relationship between our Democratic Unionist party allies and the Prime Minister would be fractured beyond repair and what we saw yesterday, when we were defeated three times in this House, will be a state of affairs repeated on a number of occasions day after day after day. I think we would be in office but unable to govern our country effectively. Colleagues need to think about that.
It is not too late for the Prime Minister to think again, to come before the House before the vote on Tuesday and to say that she is going to change the withdrawal agreement and deliver that message to our European partners. If she does that and the withdrawal agreement is changed, I for one will happily support the Government, and I believe that the majority of MPs in this House will do so. It will unify our party and bring our DUP allies back with us. If she does that, she will have my support. If she does not, I regret that, for the first time in my 13 years in Parliament, I will be unable to support the leader of my party and the Prime Minister of my country.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
We are asked to approve the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. I will vote against them because they are not in our national interest. I do not believe that they represent the will of this House or the will of our country, which is why we have to give this issue back to the people with the option to keep our current deal—a far superior arrangement. Some will say that that is unsurprising; I represent the area that scored the highest remain vote in the country. It is almost as if what my constituents think does not count, because ever since 2016, there has been a deliberate attempt to dismiss areas such as mine that voted remain and to divide them off from areas that voted leave.
Despite the multifaceted nature of the result and the fact that it was evenly balanced—17.4 million to 16.1 million—areas such as mine are sometimes treated like a small minority and airily referred to as being liberal, metropolitan and elite. In Lambeth, we are proud to be metropolitan and we are proud of our liberal values, but we are anything but an elite. We are the eighth most deprived local authority area in England. One third of the children living in our borough live in poverty. We have higher rates of unemployment and we have more acute social problems than many of the areas that voted to leave, so my constituents have grievances, too. No one side of this debate has a monopoly on grievance. The only difference is that in Lambeth, we did not believe that leaving the European Union would do anything to help us or solve the problems that I just referred to, and nothing in the withdrawal agreement or the political declaration gives us any reason to think otherwise.
As for those who did vote to leave, what were they promised and have the withdrawal agreement and declaration delivered it? The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who spoke before me, is absolutely right: it is important that these promises are kept. Vote Leave—I note that the Environment Secretary was the co-leader of that campaign—said that the Government would negotiate new trade deals that would immediately take effect on exit day. Where are those trade deals? I will give way to him if he wants to tell us where they are. We know that they are nowhere to be seen and that we will not see any of them in March 2019. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position. Not one trade deal will be in place in March 2019. I am happy to give way to him if he wants to disabuse the House of that fact, but he knows that it is not going to happen.
Vote Leave also promised that trade with the EU would not be harmed. The Prime Minister acknowledged in her Mansion House speech that we will have less market access and trade will be harmed. The Government’s own economic impact assessments are telling us that we will be poorer as a result. Then, of course, there was that ridiculous promise of the £350 million extra per week that we were told would go to the NHS—a straightforward lie, which I will not dignify with any further attention.
I want to address what is sometimes the elephant in the room: immigration. If one factor above all else was driving the vote, it was that and the issue of EU free movement. It was exploited in the most disgusting way. Remember Vote Leave’s claim that millions of Turkish people would be coming to our country, bringing criminality and threatening our security—it was an absolute disgrace and those involved in making those claims should hang their heads in shame.
There is, of course, concern about the levels of EU immigration. Let us be honest: views are stronger in respect of non-EU immigration, and there are parallels between the discontent in some leave-voting areas about EU immigration and the discontent regarding the immigration that we have had in this country from the 1950s. There was, after all, a form of free movement from the Commonwealth up until 1971; my father was part of that. I do not deny that immigration poses economic and cultural challenges in parts of our country, but if we implement the right policies, it need not do so.
I turn then to the underlying causes of concern about immigration: not enough well-paid and decent jobs; not enough decent, affordable housing; a shortage of school places; an NHS in crisis. These problems will not disappear or be mitigated if we exit, be it with this withdrawal agreement and declaration or in any other way. As the Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee has said, immigration has no or little impact on the overall employment conditions or outcomes of UK-born citizens; immigration is not a major determinant of the wages of UK-born workers; immigrants make up a small fraction of those in social housing; and, above all, EU immigrants contribute so much more to the health service and the provision of social care and financial resources, and through work, than they consume in services.
It is absolutely clear, therefore, that ending free movement will not solve the problems facing the country. We have to treat our constituents—everyone in this country—like adults and be honest. I am fed up with hearing people say, “People expressed concerns about immigration.” Of course we should engage with that, but let us not lie and say that we agree that they are caused by all these EU immigrants that people refer to. Governments from both sides of the House have not delivered enough for people, and that is the problem, not immigration.
Where does that leave us? We have absolutely no idea because we do not know the proposed post-Brexit immigration arrangements or our future economic relationship with the EU; we just have this declaration of aspiration. This is the point. Beyond immigration and security, we do not know the final Brexit destination, and let us be honest about this too: the House cannot agree what that destination should be either. For all those reasons and more, I cannot see how we can resolve this issue if we do not refer it back to the people to determine. Let us have the people’s vote we need.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Almost two and a half years have now passed since the people spoke in that big democratic referendum. The people voted in very large numbers to take back control of our laws, our money and our borders, and to reclaim the lost sovereignty of the United Kingdom electorate, and they did so in the teeth of enormous hostility and propaganda from many elements of the political and big business establishment.
The people were told they were too stupid to understand the arguments and that there were huge dangers if they dared to vote to leave the EU. They were told by both campaigns, and by the Government in a formal leaflet, that we would be leaving the single market and the customs union, because rightly we were told that the EU would not allow us to cherry-pick bits of the single market and customs union and that those were an integral part of the whole. They were given a set of entirely bogus and dishonest forecasts about what would happen in the short term after the vote, and practically every one of those forecasts was wildly too pessimistic, which has led to the distrust between the vote leave majority and the establishment that pushed out those forecasts.
I urge the House to move on from “Project Fear”, to move on from gloom and doom, and to understand that many millions of decent, honest voters made a careful and considered decision, and they do not believe those who tell them it will all go wrong, that it must be reversed or that they must be told to think again and vote again because they did not do their homework. It is deeply insulting to the electors, and I am sure that this Parliament is worthy of a much better performance than that.
The people were saying something wonderful for this Parliament. They were saying, “We believe in you, Parliament. We believe you can make wise laws. We believe you can make even wiser laws than the EU. We believe you can make better judgments about how to spend the taxes we send you than the EU, which spends so much of the money on our behalf in ways of which we do not approve. We believe, O Parliament, that if you help us to take back control of our laws and democracy, we will get better answers. Or, of course, Parliament, if you do not give us a better answer, we the people will have our sovereignty back, and we will dismiss you.”
One of the things that most annoys people about the EU among the leave-voting majority is that we cannot sack them. Whatever they do, however bad they are, however much money they waste, however irritating their laws, we have to put up with them. We cannot sack them; we cannot have a general election. [Interruption.] Scottish National party Members say that they feel the same about the Union of the United Kingdom, but we gave them the democratic opportunity, and their people say that they like our system of government, because this is their democracy too. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) should understand that her colleagues in Scotland, and her voters in Scotland, believe in UK democracy, and they have exactly the same rights of voice and vote and redress as all the rest of us.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Ever since the referendum, the narrative has been to find explanations for why the people voted as they did—any explanation other than the fact that they wanted to leave the European Union. Does he consider that the majority in favour of the amendment in the name of our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) shows that the game is up, and that there is now a majority in the House against leaving the European Union? The game for us must be to find some orderly way around that, irrespective of the majority who are now against us.
John Redwood
I do not prejudge the evil intents of other Members. I hope that all Members will agree that we must implement the referendum result. We had a general election in the summer of last year, and I remember that in that general election Labour and the Conservatives got rather more than 80% of the vote in Great Britain, the Democratic Unionist party did extremely well in Northern Ireland, and all three parties said that they would faithfully implement the referendum decision of United Kingdom voters on leaving the European Union. I trust that they will want to operate in good faith in the votes that may be to come.
My advice to Ministers, as well as to the rest of the House, is that what we should now be doing is celebrating the opportunities and the advantages that we will gain after March, when we have left the European Union. We should be having debates about how we will spend all the extra money on improving our public services instead of giving it to the EU. We should be having a debate about all the tax cuts that we need to boost our economy, so that instead of growth slowing after we leave, we speed it up by deliberate acts of policy which we would be empowered in this place to take if only Members would lift their gloom and their obstinate denial of opportunity, and see that if we spent some more money and had some tax cuts, it would provide a very welcome boost to our economy in its current situation.
I want to see us publish a schedule of tariffs for trading with the whole world that are lower than the tariffs that the EU currently makes us impose on perfectly good exporters, particularly of food products, from elsewhere in the world. Why do we have to impose high tariffs on food that we cannot grow for ourselves? I want us to have a debate on urgently taking back control of our fishing industry so that we can land perhaps twice as many fish in the UK and not let them all be landed somewhere else, and build a much bigger fish processing industry on the back of domestic landings from our very rich fishing grounds.
I wish to see us get rid of VAT on, for instance, green products and domestic fuel, which we are not allowed to do because we are an impotent puppet Parliament that does not even control its own tax system for as long as we remain in the European Union. I wish to see us take back control of our borders, so that we can have a migration policy that is right for our economic needs and fair to people from wherever they may come all around the world, rather than having an inbuilt European Union preference. I wish us to be a global leader for world trade. Now that the United States of America has a President who says that he rather likes tariffs, there is a role for a leading great power and economic force in the world like the United Kingdom to provide global leadership for free trade.
We will do none of that if we sign this miserable agreement with which the Government have presented us, because we will be locked into their customs arrangements for many months or years. We will not be free to negotiate those free trade deals, let alone provide the international leadership which I yearn for us to provide. I want us to have our seat back at the high tables of the world in the big institutions like the World Trade Organisation, so that with vote and voice and purpose, we can offer something positive, and have a more liberal free-trading democratic world than the one that we currently have. That is something that we are not allowed to do for as long as we remain members of the European Union.
I say this to Members. Lift the gloom. Stop “Project Fear”. Stop selling the electors short. Stop treating the electors as if they were unable to make an adult decision. Understand that they made a great decision—a decision I am mightily proud of—to take back sovereign control to the people, to take back the delegated sovereign control to this Parliament. It is high time that this Parliament rose to the challenge, instead of falling at every opportunity, and high time we did something positive for our constituents, instead of moaning and grumbling and spending every day—groundhog day—complaining about the vote of the British people.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Many hon. Members have spoken in this debate on one of the most important pieces of legislation that this House has considered, and I am grateful that we have as much time as we do to debate this nation’s next steps. I do not believe it is hyperbole to say that we are charged with setting this nation’s future.
I campaigned for our country to remain in the EU. I believe we are stronger when we work with our neighbours, not when we turn our backs on them. The majority of this House said that leaving the EU would be bad for business, strip protections from workers and leave us isolated in the world. We were not heeded. Many of us here counselled that article 50 should not have been triggered and that rushing to this momentous step was foolhardy. We were not heeded. We stood in this House and the Prime Minister paid lip service to the requests of hon. Members to negotiate to protect key sectors of the economy. We were not heeded
The Prime Minister and her Government have carried on regardless, with the small clique running things the same way that they always have. In this country’s greatest leap into the unknown, she has chosen not to bring people together, not to create consensus, and not to work openly. But she has used every scintilla of strategy and guile she could muster to block this place from scrutinising her deal. Now it is too late; I am sure other Members will respond to that later on. Behind her sits looming the largest rebellion of this century, because she thought she alone could design the deal this country needs. Leadership may take self-belief, but it needs self-awareness, too.
The deal that we will vote on is not a deal for growth, it is not a deal for an outward-looking Britain, and it certainly is not a deal for the future. We abandon allies and friends in Europe, and we put into question our own security, and so I do not vote against this deal lightly. If we vote this deal down, the risk only rises of a no-deal Brexit—a no-deal Brexit that will destroy jobs and livelihoods, drive teachers, doctors and nurses out of the UK, and create another generation scarred by a self-inflicted recession.
This country was built on immigration. I myself came here more than 50 years ago, made a family and a life here, served as a local councillor for over 25 years, and have become a Member of Parliament. But the Prime Minister’s plan for Brexit will denude this nation of who it needs most, so I cannot in good faith vote for a deal that leaves my constituents, young and old, without a brighter looking future. Are my grandchildren and all their generation going to look back at this moment and at the Prime Minister’s deal, and remember it as the moment we snuffed out their hope?
The misjudgment, the mishandling and the sheer incompetence of our so-called pivot to the world is staggering, I cannot believe this is what anyone voted for on 23 June 2016. We owe it to everyone in this country, from Ealing Southall to Edinburgh and across the Irish sea, to end this madness. This House should vote down the Prime Minister’s deal, and the Government should take a stand for our country and withdraw our notice under article 50. They should show some leadership. If the Prime Minister cannot summon the courage even to hand the decision back to the people in a new referendum, then this is the appropriate time for her to stand aside and let others show some real leadership.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), and I agree with him that we are stronger when we work with our neighbours. No one doubts the commitment of the Prime Minister to try to deliver on the wishes of the 52%. The trouble is that no one really knows which version of Brexit she was mandated to deliver. There are so many possible alternatives, with everything from Norway, the European Economic Area, the European Free Trade Association and Norway plus a customs union through to a Canada-style free trade agreement and Canada plus plus plus. There are so many options, but after two years of hard slog, we now know what this looks like. We know what the withdrawal agreement looks like, for example. It is a legally binding agreement with more than 500 pages, but worryingly, it has only 26 pages describing what will actually happen after the transition period. That is nothing more than a wish list of asks and it is very sketchy. We are heading for a blindfold Brexit.
I also fear that we are being forced into a binary false choice in which we accept either a bad deal or something even worse: no deal. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has set down red lines all around herself for the various options. The one area in which she has not put down a red line is the worst deal of all, which is no deal. I am afraid that I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) when he talks about “Project Fear”. I think that very shortly, possibly in as little as 114 days, we will be up against “Project Reality”. In the context of no deal, “Project Reality” would be very serious indeed for patients who use our national health service. We are talking about major interruptions in the supply chain of vital medicines and medical supplies. We are talking about insecurity in the supply of vital diagnostic test materials such as medical radioisotopes, which cannot be stockpiled. We are talking about supply chain issues for complex biological drugs, including those that we use to stop transplant rejection and to treat cancers.
We are also talking about products that cannot easily be switched from one brand to another in cases of shortage, such as medication for epilepsy. We are talking about difficulty in guaranteeing sufficient refrigeration capacity for stockpiling. Nobody voted in the referendum because they wanted to see the stockpiling of medicines and the extra costs involved, or the difficulties that the NHS and our care services will face in providing the workforce that we need. The truth is that there is no version of Brexit that would be positive for our NHS, for our care services, for science and research or for public health, and we need to be honest with people about that.
We also need to be honest and have a reality check about what is happening in this place. It seems to me that even the dogs in the street know that the Prime Minister’s deal is not going to pass this House next week. That is the truth of it. We should now be thinking about plan B, and we need to be honest about that. To my mind, plan B must not involve no deal. No responsible Government could inflict no deal on the United Kingdom in 114 days’ time. We are absolutely not prepared for that. So what is the alternative? There is no majority in this House for any of the other options, so the alternative is to look at going back to the British people and saying to them, “This is what Brexit looks like. This is the best that could be negotiated. Is this the Brexit you voted for, or do you want to stick with the deal that we have?” I would say that there was no consent to being dragged into Brexit without asking the people.
Before coming to this place, I was privileged to work in the health service for 24 years, and to teach junior doctors and medical students. In medicine, there is the really important principle of informed consent. We should apply it to Brexit, because Brexit is major constitutional, economic and social surgery. To give informed consent, one has to know what the operation involves. Two years ago, there were many possible versions of that operation, but now that we know what the surgery involves, it is time for proper discussion about the risks and benefits, and to allow people to weigh them up for themselves.
James Heappey
My hon. Friend knows that I respect her enormously. I agree that being very candid with the electorate is the right thing to do right now. Should we also be candid with them about the mechanism for delivering a second referendum—about the fact that it would require an Act of Parliament; about the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill taking 348 days to get through the Houses of Parliament; and about there being absolutely no expectation that a Bill as controversial as a second referendum Bill would be able to progress through this place any quicker?
Dr Wollaston
I ask my hon. Friend to have a look at the work of the Constitution Unit and others, who estimate that we could get a referendum Bill through the House in 22 weeks. We would first need to extend article 50. That is what I hope that the Prime Minister does. I hope that she looks at the reality of the situation, extends article 50, and asks the British people, “Is this the Brexit you voted for, or do you want to stay with the deal we have?”—the one that has served us well for decades. That question has to go back to the British people.
None of us in this House should be forced into a false choice—into choosing a bad deal because we are told that the only alternative is no deal. That is simply not the case, and I believe that the House will reject the deal. That is why I support the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) rejecting no deal, and urge colleagues to do the same. The House should ask to extend article 50, so that we have the time to consider where we go from here. Otherwise, in 114 days, we run out of road and fall off a cliff. What is needed now—this message is for the Opposition Front Benchers as well as ours—is a BFO: a blinding flash of the obvious. We need to think again. Delivering on a people’s vote will require the Opposition Front Benchers not to cling to the idea that they will force a general election; we know that will not happen, either.
We do not have any time to waste. We need Members on both Front Benches to give a free vote, or deliver support for a people’s vote. That is the way forward. This House would decide the exact question. I believe that the choice should be between this deal and remain; I know others feel that the question should be more complex. We do not have to decide that now—it is something that the House could decide later—but we must not run out of road; we must extend article 50.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I will vote against the withdrawal agreement, because I want to help and support my constituents in Motherwell and Wishaw, and because I believe the UN rapporteur and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation when they talk about increasing poverty; I have seen it in my constituency. I spent last Saturday helping a wonderful woman, Martine Nolan, with her great toy giveaway to children in my constituency and constituencies close by who will not have a Christmas because of the poverty that they are suffering. Those children’s parents are in work. In this country, being in work no longer means that someone earns enough to support their family adequately. I will not listen again to those Front Benchers who tell me that the only way out of poverty is work, when people in my constituency work in a gig economy, earn very little money and have no job security.
Within weeks of setting up my office in Motherwell, the people in my office helped me to establish the Poverty Action Network. I pay tribute to the members of that network, which include people from North Lanarkshire Council, organisations across Motherwell and Wishaw, and organisations right across North Lanarkshire. They want the best for people, I want the best for people, and this deal most certainly is not that.
As I said in my maiden speech, my constituency has always welcomed immigrants, starting with Lithuanians after the first world war. We have had Congolese refugees and Syrian refugees, and huge numbers of Polish people have contributed enormously to the culture, health and wealth of my constituency. I do not want to see barriers go up to prevent that.
At the moment, EU nationals are choosing not to come to Motherwell and Wishaw. For example, last month’s Nursing and Midwifery Council figures showed that EEA applications for registration in this country were down 87% last year, and they are still dropping. The people who look after our most vulnerable mostly come from EU countries.
When my husband was dying, I was relieved that he would not need more radiotherapy, because I was so worried about what might happen if he had needed it and there were queues at Dover, we were no longer in Euratom and he could not get the vital services he needed. He was lucky that he did not have to wait, and he is out of that kind of pain now.
Turning to businesses in my constituency, small businesses rely on there being higher numbers of EU nationals in Scotland. That is especially true in the highlands and islands, but even the factory in my constituency that makes kilts for the UK Army employs EU nationals. It needs those people and the support they provide.
The UK chair of the Federation of Small Businesses said that if small businesses are
“lumbered with complex paperwork to bring in EU staff post-Brexit that will cause a significant drag on the billions they contribute to the economy each year.”
We cannot have that; it does not help our businesses. How will the economy grow when we do not have the right people in the right jobs because of paperwork?
The fact that Northern Ireland has secured a separate Brexit deal—and for very good reason—will affect competition between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, companies will start to move. It is just a short hop across the water from Stranraer—or, rather, below Stranraer—to Belfast.
Marion Fellows
Cairnryan—I thank the hon. Gentleman. It is only a short hop. That will affect Scotland’s business community in a way that has not even been thought about.
I do not want people in my surgeries, whether they are EU nationals or others, to feel that they are not welcome in my country. I do not want immigrants to be treated differently from how they are treated now. I do not want them to have to pay any more. Thank goodness the Scottish Government are going to pay for the paperwork that may be necessary.
Workers in my constituency will suffer a loss in rights if this Government have anything to do with it. The Government have shown that they would prefer businesses to have rights than the workers who create their profits.
My constituents voted yes in the first independence referendum and remain in the 2016 referendum. I want them to continue to be members of the single market and the customs union, and I want to continue to welcome migrants to Scotland. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, Scotland has seen how the United Kingdom Government treat its Parliament, its people and its industries.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
With contempt.
Marion Fellows
With complete contempt. This Scotland will not put up with that much longer. In view of that, I have no faith in this Government, I do not want Scotland to remain part of the UK, and I am confident that my constituents will vote yes in the next independence referendum.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). I rise to speak in a debate in the Chamber for the first time for some months, but this takes me back to my maiden speech during a debate on the European Union back in 2005, because the topic has continued to be discussed in the House every year since.
Those looking at this debate from outside—I am sure that other Members are getting the same evidence that I am receiving in my postbag and via email—are encouraging the House to settle the issue and to get on with it. Since the referendum, and while the Prime Minister has been seeking to negotiate a deal, we have been living with a degree of uncertainty that we cannot, in all conscience, allow the country to continue to endure for years to come. Many of the alternative options to the deal that is on the table that have been referenced by other Members in this debate today and yesterday all require actions to be taken by parties other than the people in this House. In almost every case, they require either a continuing negotiation with the EU on matters that it has already indicated it does not intend to engage with us on, or they require both Houses of Parliament to enact further legislation, as we just heard in response to the question to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) regarding a second referendum. Each option would involve months, if not years, of continuing uncertainty with no certainty whatsoever about the outcome, so I hope that hon. Members will take that into account when voting next week.
I want to talk about a couple of specific aspects of the deal that is on the table to try to explain why I intend to support the Government. I am looking for a pragmatic Brexit. I am looking for a negotiated deal that allows for as frictionless trade to continue as is possible, and not because that would be in the best interests simply of big business. I find it extraordinary that colleagues across the House refer to “Project Fear” or scaremongering when any business raises its head and says, “This is going to be damaging for my business. This is going to lead to job losses in my sector.” I sit on the Environmental Audit Committee, which heard yesterday from the chemicals industry, and the reality is that many Members have heard evidence given to multiple Select Committees that the complexities of seeking to continue to trade in a no-deal environment are such that many businesses in the chemicals sector, the pharmaceutical industry, the automotive industry and the financial services industry—many of the sectors that we rely on for the large majority of jobs in this country—would come under significant pressure in the event that we crash out with no deal. That would happen whatever colleagues might think.
I am thinking in particular of the largest employers in my constituency that I know best. My constituency is in the west midlands, so many are heavily involved in the automotive and manufacturing sectors. Grainger & Worrall is the largest employer in Bridgnorth alongside Bridgnorth Aluminium. The McConnel agricultural machinery business is the largest employer in Ludlow. Britpart, which is a motor manufacturer, is the largest employer in Craven Arms. There are companies engaged in food production and agri-products, such as Euro Quality Lambs in Craven Arms. All those companies are worried about what would happen to their business in the event of no deal and all are pressing us to negotiate a deal to allow frictionless trade.
In my time as a Minister, I was involved in two sectors in particular: defence and health. Some material has been put out regarding the impact of this deal on our defence relationships, and from the protocol I have seen for the future framework on security, there is nothing to be concerned about in relation to the Government’s intent on defence.
There is an opportunity for us to continue to have an associate relationship with, for example, the European Defence Agency, which has been characterised as a very damaging thing. We have been contributing the princely sum of £2 million a year to the European Defence Agency for the last 10 years, and we choose to take up very few opportunities to engage with its procurement arrangements because we think we can do it better on our own or through bilateral relations with many other countries across Europe. That is a canard, or a boil that needs to be lanced.
Similarly, we are not going to be engaged in a European army. In this country we rightly regard NATO as the foundation of our defence. If the European Union wishes to go ahead with a European army, we will have no part of it. On many occasions when operations take place around the world—some of those operations are EU initiatives—we choose whether we wish to participate. We should continue to be able to do that, but it will be our choice whether we participate.
On procurement, it has been suggested that we will lose the current exemption from article 346 and will therefore be bound by EU procurement arrangements for warlike stores. That is specifically ruled out by annex 2 of the protocol on the transition period, and it will undoubtedly be negotiated out of the eventual agreement.
On health, I am reassured that, in his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he intends to provide the unilateral right of residency to EU citizens and their families for the future, and I look forward to seeing that in the migration policy. That should provide considerable reassurance to the EU citizens who work in our health service and in our social care sector that they will continue to be welcome here, which I know concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.
I am concerned about having continuing access to medicines, which can only be achieved in a straightforward way through a negotiated deal. That is another reason why I will support the deal next week.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), although I do not agree with his analysis of this agreement, nor will I be voting in the same manner as him next Tuesday. He talks about the importance of supporting this deal because we have to get on with delivering on the view of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the EU, but this deal does not do that. It does not deliver on the referendum result, nor does it deliver on the promises and the manifestos on which his party, my party and the Labour party stood at the last election, when people gave a second endorsement to the belief that we are better off out of the EU. This deal, because of its concentration on a mythical problem that will exist between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic when we leave the EU, has tied the United Kingdom into a range of measures that will damage the economy and damage the Union.
Paul Girvan
I have just attended an event with a hand-picked group of businesses and organisations that the Secretary of State requested, and they told me to support this deal. Why are they so wrong?
Sammy Wilson
I will go through the reasons why they are wrong. This deal emphasises a mythical problem on the border—a problem that does not exist. The current practice means that trade can go across the Irish border, with taxes being collected, with goods being checked for conformity with regulations and with animal health being protected, yet we do not need a hard border. Indeed, all the parties to this agreement have said that they will not, in any circumstances, have a hard border. Only a couple of weeks ago, the EU and the Irish Government were assuring us that even if there is no deal, a hard border will not be imposed, because a hard border is not necessary. What we have in this withdrawal agreement, with the Northern Ireland protocol and the UK protocol, is designed to do only one thing: thwart the wishes of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the EU.
That is because we have only a number of options. The UK as a whole could stay in the single market and the customs union. If the Government wish to free themselves from that, Northern Ireland has to stay within the single market and the customs union. I defy any Member of this House to say that they could go back to their constituents, tell them what the Attorney General told the Cabinet was going to happen to their constituents and find that they would not be chased. First, their constituency would have to regard the rest of the UK as a third country, with the implication that they could not trade freely with the rest of the UK. They would have barriers placed between their part of the UK and the rest of it, and businessmen would face all the impediments. Indeed, the legal opinion makes it clear that there would be friction in trade—in other words, there would be additional costs, delays and barriers, and there would be distortions to trade, yet that is what this agreement entails for Northern Ireland.
We can get out of that only by doing one of two things. First, we could reach a future trade arrangement that the EU says is sufficient to allow us to be out of that arrangement completely. It could even insist that if we reach a free trade arrangement, we still have partly to stay within those restrictions, including more than 300 EU regulations which would be applied to Northern Ireland. Just in case the EU has missed any, it says, “Any future new ones that fall within the scope of this would also have to apply”, so we would have different laws from the rest of the UK.
James Heappey
The Northern Ireland national farmers union has made it clear that the Prime Minister’s deal is in the best interests of farmers in Northern Ireland—why is it wrong?
Sammy Wilson
This is a surprising thing. If the Ulster Farmers Union read this agreement, it would see that article 12 of the Northern Ireland protocol makes it clear that because state aid rules would apply to Northern Ireland, even if this UK Government decided to subsidise agriculture, the EU could cap any subsidy. The subsidy could apply differently in the rest of the UK from how it could apply in Northern Ireland. I could take Members through a range of other things in this agreement that the UFU conveniently has just dismissed but that will have an impact on its members. That is one reason why many farmers in my constituency are raging with the UFU.
One way of getting ourselves out of this is by having a free trade arrangement, which the EU may or may not deem as allowing us to get away from these shackles. The Attorney General makes it clear that although best endeavours to reach a free trade agreement are required, the EU could still argue, “We have done our best but it is still not in our interests.” Sixteen years later it could still be arguing, “We are doing our best” and still not be in breach of the obligations in this agreement. We know—Scottish Members should be aware of this—that the French Government have already said that they will use this as a cudgel to get further concessions from the UK Government on fishing, aviation and other things. Every other EU country will be doing the same and using the same tactic, so that is not an easy way out and we could still be negotiating this.
Significantly, the other method of getting out is for us to extend the transition period. There is great ambition shown in the withdrawal agreement about extending the transition period. Many people think that when we talk about extending the transition period we are talking about a few months. Well, according to the document it could be extended to “20XX”—we could still be at this in 100 years. This place could be refurbished, or even rebuilt, by the time we have got a free trade arrangement to replace the backstop.
The impact of this agreement on the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom is that Northern Ireland would be treated differently from other parts of the United Kingdom, which is something the Prime Minister promised would never happen. Northern Ireland industries are more export-oriented than any other region of the UK, because we have a small local market. We produce a third of the world’s aircraft seats. If someone has sat in row C or F, they have probably sat in a seat made in Kilkeel. We produce 40% of the world’s stone-crushing equipment. All that goes to markets mostly outside the EU, yet we would be excluded from participating in any trade deals that our Government might arrange with the rest of the world because we would be permanently part of the customs union unless the backstop were lifted. The backstop can be lifted only if and when the EU decides it is time to lift it.
I say to those on the Government Front Bench that we had an arrangement to keep the Government in power and working between now and the end of this fixed-term Parliament. Promises were made. In December, we sat with the Prime Minister in Downing Street and she said, “I will make sure that Northern Ireland has the final say in this because the Assembly will be the final arbiter as to whether or not these arrangements are put in place.” Those promises were taken out of the agreement. There has been bad faith. The agreement and understanding that we had has been broken. As the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said in his speech, that has caused tensions. Going down this road will create tensions. We want to see our agreement honoured because we want to see the United Kingdom preserved.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
It is great to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and his siren warnings about what could happen over the coming weeks and months if we do not listen. I understand that people are talking to the DUP; it is about time that people started listening to the DUP. There is a huge difference.
I am not one of the MPs who has stood up and waxed lyrical on this issue over the past two years, as some Members in this Chamber have done. Barely a debate has gone by without certain Members sharing what they believe is right. I have heard a lot of talk today about honesty, transparency and treating people like adults. That is a good idea, because in 2016 we had a people’s vote. For anybody even to suggest that another referendum would be the people’s vote because the last one was not is totally and wholly fraudulent. It is ridiculous.
A people’s vote was held in 2016. We MPs in this Parliament allowed it to be held, and it was held. Surprise, surprise: it was not what people in the main thought was going to happen. I remember watching the result. There was no exit poll. The pound was up, shares were up, and Nigel Farage conceded defeat. Then, of course, the results started to come in. People who lived in the bubble of London could be forgiven for thinking that remain was going to win, but what happened was that there were swathes of people in the north-east, the north-west, and the south-west who felt as if nobody was listening to them—that they were the invisible people. Thanks to David Cameron, though, they were given a voice, they used that voice, and the voice said leave. Now, all of a sudden, those people are facing this Parliament, which is saying, “Not only don’t we see you; we have now decided not to listen to you.” That is wholly dangerous indeed.
When we agree to a referendum, we really do need to respect the result. In 1997, when I was a shadow Minister, Wales had a referendum on devolution. The result was 50.3% in favour and 49.7% against, on a 50.1% turnout. What did we do? We conceded. The difference between yes and no was under 7,000, but we conceded that that was what should happen, and devolution was given to the people of Wales. It would have been wholly wrong had we not done that.
Tim Loughton
Does my hon. Friend not agree that one of the reasons why people voted to leave is that, when a country has a referendum and comes up with a result that the EU does not like, it is the practice of the EU to pat it on the head patronisingly and to tell it to go away and come up with a different result—one that the EU agrees with. Is that not what certain people are now telling us that we should be doing, which is why we wanted to get out of the EU in the first place?
Mr Evans
It is worse than that. Again, it is this idea of let us go for honesty and treat people like adults. I am talking about the people’s vote—because we did not have one last time when 35 million people voted. What should be the options? “Oh”, says my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), “there should be three options.” The first is vote for the Government’s deal, which hardly anyone I speak to thinks is any good; then there is the cliff edge, which most people believe can be avoided and is an option that people really do not want; or there is stay in the European Union, which people rejected in 2016. That is not fair. Let us be honest: we are told that, in this Parliament, we cannot reach a decision with which everyone will agree. We must accept that, during the referendum, the vast majority of Members of Parliament voted and campaigned for remain. We are in a remain Parliament, which happens to reside in a leave country. It is wholly dangerous for us to turn to the people now and say, “You let us down. You got it wrong.” What else is said about people who voted leave? It is that they are a bit thick and that they did not know what they were voting for. We have also had intimations that perhaps they were racist. Well, no, they were not. They were not racist. Immigration was only part of it. It was all about the sovereignty of making decisions in this Parliament, with immigration being part of that.
Catherine West
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, following the Welsh devolution debate, there was no requirement for a public inquiry into the funding of the various campaigns? A number of years have elapsed since that vote. There was not, at that time, the technological advances and the questionable use of Facebook and other social media, so it is not really comparing apples with apples.
Mr Nigel Evans
Well, it is apples and apples. It is simply because there are people here who are now using any excuse to try to ignore the result—to try to turn it over because they did not like the campaign. They think that people lied on one side or the other. In fact, those accusations were levelled at both campaigns. We should not forget that, on top of that, the Government spent £9.3 million on a brochure that they sent to every household in this country, using taxpayers’ money. It was propaganda to try to convince them to vote remain. I objected to the pamphlet at the beginning. On the back of it, David Cameron put one paragraph that said, “We will accept the verdict of the British people.” I urge Members in this Chamber to be careful about what they wish for. The electorate will be incredibly angry if we try to ignore the result. In Lancashire, whether in Labour seats or Conservative seats, every constituency voted to leave the European Union, and we want our voices to be heard.
Let me move on to the problem that we have with the Attorney General’s advice. I have specific problems with the backstop. The more that I read this advice the more I dislike it. I did not like it before, but now I like it even less. I love the mentions of “good faith” and “best endeavours”. The last time I heard “best endeavours”, I was a boy cub. Really, is that the best we can try for? I did hear the Prime Minister say that we will not have any borders down the Irish sea when, explicitly, that is what will now happen. I am very, very unhappy with that, although I listened to the Prime Minister at Question Time today and I got some sort of hope from her response to a question about what would happen on Tuesday if the deal was voted down. Now, we all know that I have more chance of winning “The Great British Bake Off” than the Prime Minister has of getting this through—[Interruption.] “Strictly”? No—I cannot cook and I cannot dance. That does not stop the Prime Minister—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”]—but it would certainly stop me. That was a joke. [Interruption.] My career stopped a long time ago, I can assure hon. Members.
The Prime Minister did say that she was going to look at the backstop, which is clearly a problem that needs to be looked at for a number of reasons. We need to be able unilaterally to leave the European Union, because that is what the vote said in 2016. At the moment, we can do so. If we were to sign the withdrawal agreement, funnily enough we would be handing over that power. All of a sudden we would be unable unilaterally to leave the European Union, and that is not what the people voted for. They voted to take back control, not to give it away. This is a real issue.
The agreement is dripping with problems, as has been intimated by our friends from the DUP. If a miracle happens on 34th Street and we get this deal through, it will be the last thing we get through for a long while because we have lost the support of the people who are keeping us in power. Let us think long and hard about that. Right at the end of the legal advice, the conclusion states:
“In the absence of a right of termination, there is a legal risk that the United Kingdom might become subject to protracted and repeating rounds of negotiations.”
Think about that. Not only are we treating Northern Ireland differently; we simply do not know how long the backstop is going to last. Is that where we want to be? Is that what the British people voted for in 2016? I do not think so.
I have heard a rumour that the Prime Minister is thinking about a change, by saying that Parliament should be able to vote on putting us into the backstop, and giving Parliament that power. I do not want that power. Getting into the backstop is not the problem; it is getting out that is the problem. That is where this Parliament needs to be able to make a decision—the decision to say, “Thank you. We’re leaving.”
Harold Wilson said that politics is the art of the possible—[Interruption]. And Rab Butler as well. Well, he probably paraphrased him. All I can say is: over to you, Prime Minister. Let us see where the art of the possible takes us on Tuesday but, for goodness’ sake, don’t take this to defeat.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
At the outset, I really want to congratulate the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) on a very powerful speech that was rooted in reality, and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) on the successful passage of his amendment yesterday. He has been truly outstanding through all these Brexit debates.
For very good reason, I want to use this occasion to say a fond farewell to my German teacher, Keith Walker, from my old school of Wolstanton in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Keith passed away a fortnight ago and his funeral is on Friday. Mr Walker, as we called him back then, was instrumental in helping to form my views on Britain’s right and proper place at the heart of Europe. His wonderful teaching made sure that I got a place to study German at Oxford, and it was because of Keith that I first took part in—and then for six years helped to organise—international youth exchanges in Berlin with the German War Graves Commission, when the wall was the starkest reminder of the outcome of the second world war and of the cold war that followed.
In the trading of facts and fictions during the disastrous 2016 referendum, the historical perspective very much got completely lost. Yes, the European Union could be frustrating. It was not perfect, like everything, but from its origins after the war as the European Coal and Steel Community through to the Common Market, it has been very much part of the architecture of peace, trade, dialogue and prosperity in our times. Could we ever imagine that the states of the former Yugoslavia would have engaged in such shameful blood-letting had they been part of the European Community, to which we have belonged for 45 years and membership of which was confirmed by 67% of our people at the first referendum in 1975?
Now fast-forward to the debacle of 2016. My constituency and home town of Newcastle-under-Lyme voted around 60:40 to leave, and it is hardly a secret that I profoundly disagree with that verdict. Aside from matters of economy and trade, history shows that when Britain has been disengaged from European affairs, it has harmed not only our national interests but the national interests of countries on the continent as well. We have had, and still have, very much to offer.
When the subject of Brexit came up on the doorstep last year, I politely—I hope—disagreed with people of a leave persuasion, and then we moved on to discussing the state of our local hospital and the potholes in the road. For all the heat that we feel at Westminster, most people were simply not obsessed about Europe. The great, reasonable majority want us to get this right in the national interest—and, for all the reasons that most Members have outlined today, the Prime Minister’s deal does not serve that national interest.
In Newcastle, we campaigned as passionately in the referendum as at any general election. At the start, it was possible to have a fairly reasonable debate. Quite a number of people I had known for many years, and would have sworn were leavers, said that their heart was with “out”, but their head said “stay in” for jobs, investment, kids and opportunities for the future. So it was possible to have a decent discussion—until about a fortnight before voting day, that is. Then, at the entrance to my town, like many others up and down the land, the big red banner posters went up saying, “Turkey, population 76 million, is joining the EU—vote leave”. Photographs of queues of refugees were mingled, to great effect, with an old-fashioned blue British passport. It was of course an outright lie, but it was impossible to get that through to people, because their immediate response, time and again, was “What are you going to do about the Turks?”
What I did not know at the time was that that message was not only being shouted out from old-fashioned billboards but was reverberating exaggeratedly around social media in targeted dark ads that remainers like me would never see. That has only become clear since our Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry into fake news, involving Facebook in particular. Of course, that inquiry has followed up on breaches of the law and spending limits by both main leave campaigns.
But two years on, I do not want to cry over spilt milk. I think that the past two years have shown that people are now much better informed about the consequences of exactly how we leave—if indeed we do. If the Prime Minister loses next week’s vote, we are in interesting territory, to say the least, but one thing must be certain: no matter how much she tries to cling on in the hope of making amends for her disastrous election performance last year, the Prime Minister really has to go, like her predecessor did after the referendum result. Then the question for us will be whether the House can form a majority to chart the way forward, or whether this can only be settled by a general election or a referendum.
I view the prospect of another people’s vote with more than trepidation. I do not know how it is going to be possible to have a reasonable debate when the poll will be framed by shrieks of betrayal from most of our printed press, reinforced by deep pockets using and abusing the echo chamber of social media. But if that is the only road ahead, we should not shirk from holding that vote. Come an election or a referendum, I will be making the same arguments again. I firmly believe that it is in Britain’s national interest to remain within the European Union with a seat at the table, a vote and sometimes a veto—to reform, where needed, from within, not just to shout from the sidelines without, or, under this deal, to go cap in hand begging for favours in future.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly).
In many respects, this is the classic issue for MPs—what are their priorities? Are they based on their personal view, their constituency’s view, or the view of the party that they should perhaps be following? Then, ultimately, how do they make their decision in the national interest? Generally speaking, that issue does not really crop up, but we live in unusual circumstances. We have to acknowledge that parties are fundamentally split. MPs’ views can be very much at variance with those in their own constituency. The dilemma for each and every one of us is what we, as individual MPs, believe is in the national interest.
When I look back over the past two and a half years—I appreciate that hindsight is a wonderful thing—I see some key mistakes that have been made. There were the red lines that the Prime Minister set out. In many respects, when you go into a negotiation, you do not lay down what your views are before you enter into it. Then there was the early calling of the election when we actually had a working majority, and of course the triggering of article 50. Looking back, we should have prepared all the legislative requirements and Bills to get them passed before we even thought about triggering article 50. Indeed, we should also have had a national debate about exactly what our long-term relationship with the EU should be.
But at the end of the day, we are where we are, and the Government are suggesting that there are now three alternatives: no deal, remain/second referendum, or their own proposal. I fully accept that we voted in 2016 to leave EU institutions, and we definitely have to respect that, but the nature of our future relationship still has to be decided, and that is a decision for Parliament. Of the three options that the Government have effectively set out, I do not support a second referendum. It would be unnecessary and divisive, and I wonder what it would achieve. I cannot see how remaining in the EU would be sensible, because it would undoubtedly be a changed relationship with our EU partners. As for no deal, I find that equally unpalatable. It is not in our country’s interests. I think it would lead to a recession and make us a poorer country. It is not in the interests of our national economy and certainly not in the interests of my constituents.
The Government therefore have to argue that the only real option is to support their position—that is, the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. I, like many others, have concerns about the withdrawal agreement. I do not feel a need to go into those, because they have been well expressed by other Members. I also have concerns about the political declaration, many of which have been raised. We would have two years of negotiations before we even got a deal, if we did in fact get one. I question whether the unity of the EU would hold, because its members would have competing national interests. I wonder where we would end up with those negotiations. We have to await the decision of Parliament next Tuesday to know whether that is the course we will take.
I believe there is an alternative—a fourth option—that is acceptable to the EU and fully understood by all, and that is EFTA-EEA. Simply put, that would allow us to have an independent agricultural policy and an independent fisheries policy. We would not be part of the ECJ; the EFTA court would determine decisions. There would be no payments to the EU, and we would be a member of the single market. I have never quite understood why people are so hostile to membership of the single market. We are proposing to enter into a free trade agreement. What is a free trade agreement? It is an attempt to get rid of tariffs and regulatory differences between economies. I genuinely believe that staying in the single market is in this country’s interests. I accept that there is the issue of free movement, but we have the emergency brake under article 112 of the EEA agreement, and the reality is that more immigration comes from outwith the EU than within it, and we have absolute control over that.
I think that proposal would have widespread support from Members on both sides of the House. It would ensure that we were actually out of the EU—out of the political project and out of any sort of union—but back to the common market ideals of old, which the people of this country have always supported.
I remind the House that relationships change. The EU will change with our departure and will continue to change in other ways that we have not thought of. EFTA would also develop. The arrival of a large economy would change its dynamics, and it would become a much more significant player. The relationship between the EU and EFTA would change because of the arrival of a large economy, and EFTA’s importance would increase significantly.
I make those comments on EFTA to remind the House that there is a potential alternative should the Government lose the vote next week, and it is one that I would certainly support. On Tuesday, we will have to weigh up what we as individual MPs believe is in the national interest. I certainly believe that no deal and remain are not sensible alternatives. Whether the political declaration offers us a route to a sensible future relationship with the EU is a judgment that we will all have to make on Tuesday, but should the Government’s proposal be defeated, I believe there is a genuine and real alternative.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)
I agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) on membership of EFTA and the EEA, and I will come on to that later in my speech.
It has fallen to this generation of politicians to make one of the most profound decisions outside of war that this country has ever had to make. The referendum result exposed a deeply divided country, with many voters wanting to send a strong message to elites, whether political or business, that government and the economy, whether national or European, are not delivering for them, with wage stagnation and rapid migration fuelling alienation and resentment.
The Prime Minister is fond of talking about the national interest, but the whole Brexit shambles is a consequence of the eternal European fault line in the Conservative party. This shambles of a negotiation, which has left our country a laughing stock, has been caused by red lines that may as well have been written in invisible ink and by the dogma of some hard Brexiteers who prefer a scorched earth Brexit. They can afford years of poor growth, unlike my constituents, whose jobs and living standards are on the line.
The problem with our negotiating position from the beginning has been that the starting point was not the national interest but an ill-fated attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable factions in the Cabinet and the parliamentary Conservative party, and we have ended up with a worst-of-all-worlds deal. The deal has united the Leader of the Opposition and the Democratic Unionist party—that takes some doing—and united leavers and remainers in opposition to it.
I want to turn to the notion of a people’s vote, about which I am extremely sceptical. I recall that many who now advocate a people’s vote were the biggest critics of David Cameron for holding the first referendum. In the internal debate that took place in the Labour party, good and hon. Friends now supporting a second vote were the most vociferous persuaders in ensuring that an EU referendum was not in our election manifesto. If determining our future in the EU by referendum was wrong in principle in 2015, 2016 and 2017, why is it right now?
Of course I deplore the untruths promoted by the leave campaign, including false promises, but if that is a justification for a second vote, I suggest that many general election results through history would be null and void. The only certainty about the result of a second referendum is that it would once again expose the fact that we remain deeply divided as a nation. Worse than that, even if it resulted in a decision to remain, it would fuel support for nationalism and hard-right politics and politicians like never before. It would be the elite telling the people they got it wrong and we know best. Have we learned nothing from political earthquakes erupting around the world?
I say to my Labour friends that even if a second vote results in a victory for remain, it may turn out to be a pyrrhic victory. We were in the EU when, for 18 years, Thatcherism destroyed the fabric of communities in our society. We have been in the EU since 2010, while we have seen the poorest suffering the most as a consequence of austerity. There is nothing more likely to perpetuate right-wing Governments than a backlash against a second vote supported and promoted by progressives. Of course it is right to ask whether we will be worse off if we leave the EU, but it is also right to ask who will suffer the most if, through apparent contempt for half the population, we consign our country to long-term right-wing Governments.
It is incumbent on all of us not simply to oppose this bad deal and to oppose no deal, but to present an alternative, as the hon. Member for Carlisle did. I have come to the conclusion that the best, if far from perfect, option—crucially, it could secure a majority in this place—is so-called Norway plus. I accept that will become possible only when hon. Members’ first preferences are defeated, but I believe a significant majority in this House will act in the way envisaged in the amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), which we passed last night, and unite around that option as the best and only viable alternative to no deal. It is not perfect, but it respects the referendum result while providing the stability to ensure a relatively smooth economic transition.
Since the referendum, the Government have let the people of this country down very badly. They failed to seek cross-party consensus when that was possible and indeed was required by such a close result. Instead, they have allowed the dysfunctional Tory family on Europe to create a dysfunctional country that is much diminished in the world. The Prime Minister has not listened, and in the case of Northern Ireland has clearly breached trust. That is a question of substance, and not just for the politicians representing Northern Ireland in this House; it is about a sense of being told untruths.
That is why Members of good will on both sides must make the best use of yesterday’s amendment, assert the authority of Parliament and show what acting in the national interest truly means. Only then will we put the country on a path to a better future, and maybe even regain some public confidence and respect. Hon. Members need to reflect on the public’s contempt: they asked this group of politicians to make the decision on Brexit in the national interest, yet all they see is a disastrous situation where the Government have negotiated a shoddy deal and Parliament seems absolutely incapable of coming together and working together in the national interest. If, as we suspect, the amendments and the substantive motion are defeated next week, it is incumbent on all of us in this House to unite not around the ideal, but around a solution that is pragmatic and actually represents the best interests of this country. I urge people to give serious consideration to Norway plus in that context.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis). There is a better plan and a better future than this friendless withdrawal agreement, one free of fear. The way to unify, as he said, is to lead and to show what that alternative is. It is not, however, Norway plus a customs union. That would make us a rule taker with no autonomy. It would be against the referendum result and our manifesto pledges. We would continue to pay money and there would continue to be freedom of movement. It would still require a withdrawal agreement, which we all hate, and it would not settle the issue. It would just create more uncertainty for business and for the people in this country.
We need to go for an advanced free trade agreement and replace the protocol on Northern Ireland with something that will still give confidence to communities on the island of Ireland. We can provisionally apply such an agreement if a plan and a schedule are agreed for zero tariffs, so that that can persist after the end of March. It can have efficient cheap processes for all our borders, which business can deal with, and free trade rules that cumulate, so that supply chains do not suffer dislocation. It is a future that we can have, but we need to ask for it and not give in.
That does not mean that we have to leave in a disorderly way. We can continue to talk constructively about how we can be friends and allies, and what the best arrangements are for that. For me, money can remain on the table—that is fair enough; give and take and compromise are okay by me—but we must do this as separate, sovereign jurisdictions. Both sides must now prepare. When the EU hear that, I think there will be relief on their side. They will know what they are dealing with. They will have interlocutors with whom they can have frank and constructive dealings, knowing that there are limits. The EU are not bullies—that disrespects them—but they are what they are, which is a bureaucracy whose natural imperative is to push limits. If we do not show them where those limits are, they will have no reference point for where to stop. We have to stand strong at this point.
The truth is that the withdrawal agreement is not a compromise, but a capitulation made out of misunderstanding and fear, and out of letting the EU make the running by letting it set the schedules, agendas and the texts. This, sadly, is what has led our country and our democracy to the chopping block, trussed up for the EU’s feast. It is a tragic misconception of the economics and the practicalities by those who I think have never really properly applied themselves. Yes, I have been very critical of the Cabinet and those on the Government Front Bench. I think that that is justified and I am not afraid to say why.
There is certainly a better way to do this. The forecasting has been wrong. The countries that have offered us free trade have been rebuffed, and experience and knowledge within Government Departments and the civil service have simply been ignored. That makes me wonder why. Is it because we have a Government full of EU ideologues, or are they just afraid because they do not understand how trade can be really efficient and how cross-border supply chains can sit well in a trade agreement framework outside the EU? It is not really a case of whether the perfect is the enemy of the good. The point is that there is a better plan and I am afraid that the Prime Minister’s deal is in no sense good. It really is a very bad agreement. It is not something that the Government have modelled because I do not think that they dare.
We have heard about a lot of things in the backstop element of the withdrawal agreement that are not good. The joint decision that is required in the Joint Committee, unless there is a superseding agreement, pretty much guarantees pain for this country. In the backstop, our interlocutors will have massive leverage and they will have hostages to fortune. They will have us where they want us and we would be just wrong to say that it will be uncomfortable for them. I believe that is naive, delusional or worse. It would put us as a captive into a customs union with antiquated procedures. There would be wet stamps, for goodness’ sake, on physical pieces of paper—Toyota will not like that one bit. The Government should be embarrassed by the deal, because it really is that bad. Has the Treasury modelled what it would cost industry to do this wet-stamping process? When we look at third country trade on current EU rules, the cost is only about 0.3% of the value of consignments, but the Treasury is forecasting 11% for the car industry. It must have wet stamps in mind, because in modern customs, it ain’t that expensive, or anything like.
This really is a matter of trying to see what we can do now. There are other hostages—I have mentioned before that I have discovered that state aid would apply to our defence industry in the backstop. That is an outrageous change and it gives our sovereign ability in defence wholly to the EU to decide how competitive that is. I have asked five Cabinet members now whether they know about this. None of them does, and I think that people need to read the agreement properly. I will be circulating a note about this later tonight so that Members can make up their own minds, but this concerns 123,000 jobs all over our country, in Labour constituencies, SNP constituencies—it affects all of us. This is just not an acceptable state of affairs for our national Government to be putting us into.
I implore colleagues to say no to this humiliating servitude that has been served up for us. It would be the cause of shame for generations to come. There is a better way to do this.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
This is probably one of the most important debates that I have ever taken part in in this House, and we have had quite a few important debates. Certainly for my constituency and probably for other constituencies up and down the country, we are talking about our young people’s future just as much as we are talking about our constituents today and their interests today.
If we look at the effect on the economy and GDP, the Treasury’s analysis suggests that this deal would leave the economy 3.9% smaller after 15 years than if we stayed in the EU. Unsurprisingly, it also shows that any form of Brexit would leave us facing a huge economic loss. Of course, the worst-case scenario is a no-deal Brexit, which would leave us 9.3% worse off over that 15-year period. We did not need that analysis to tell us that a no-deal Brexit is a significant threat to this country, but the choice facing us today is not between a bad deal or no deal. There are strong economic grounds for us to vote down this deal and to seek a different Brexit with the EU, or to remain as we are.
Coventry has a long history of manufacturing, and 11,000 people in my constituency work in the manufacturing industry, just as I did. Because of that, I have had regular meetings with some of the biggest manufacturers in Coventry, including Jaguar Land Rover, Meggitt and the London Electric Vehicle Company. Throughout the Brexit negotiations, they have been concerned about what Brexit will mean for future business in the EU. Anybody who knows anything about manufacturing knows that manufacturers need at least some stability to look forward four or five years—sometimes it is a lot longer in the aircraft industry—but this deal does not give them that.
The Government have responded to some concerns, but they have not provided enough information for businesses to plan long term, as I have already indicated. Their failure to convince business is shown most of all by the leaked CBI email revealing its true opinion, which is that this is not a good deal. All businesses need stability to plan ahead and to protect the jobs of our constituents. This deal offers no stability and is a stab in the dark that puts the jobs of my constituents at risk. I will therefore not be joining the CBI in backing the deal, which I, and the CBI, have great reservations about. If the deal is defeated on Tuesday, it will set us on a path to a different Brexit—one that puts the jobs of my constituents before the ideology of some of the Prime Minister’s Back Benchers.
I am lucky to represent a constituency with not only skills and success in manufacturing, but two world-class universities, Coventry and Warwick—incidentally, research and development is as important to them as to the manufacturing sector and companies such as Jaguar Land Rover. Those universities bring huge benefits to the local economy and to the UK as a result of their cutting-edge research, which contributes £1.8 billion in GDP annually. They are a crucial part of our community and economy, just as other universities are across the country.
I have been in touch with both universities to see what the deal would mean for them. Unsurprisingly, they are not willing to back a deal that does not mention the word “university” once in its entire 585 pages. Since 2010, they have received close to £100 million in EU funding. There is no mention in the agreement of replacing that. Considering that the previous Universities Minister resigned over the deal, it is clear that it does not deliver for students or universities. Both universities are outward-looking institutions with strong links to Europe, as shown by the fact that about 10% of both students and staff in Coventry come from the EU. The Government say they want diversity to continue, but that is not backed up—the deal fails to mention the Erasmus scheme.
The EU contributes a huge amount to Coventry through funding beyond that given to universities, but this funding has yet to be protected and guaranteed for the long term after Brexit. According to the House of Commons Library, Coventry has received over £400 million in funding from the EU since 2014. This money is a crucial part of the local economy and keeps thousands of people employed. Unfortunately, we all know there is no chance of the Government maintaining this funding as well as increasing funding for the NHS.
The Prime Minister may pretend there will be a Brexit bonanza, but her Brexit will not fill the gap left by EU funding, and that will leave Coventry worse off. She has made numerous vague promises of extra funding for the NHS after Brexit, but this relies entirely upon us starting new trade deals immediately after the transition period, and these deals will not be that easy, despite promises to have 40 of them ready by next March. Without any definitive evidence of extra funding, her warm words on the NHS may as well be written on the side of a bus.
As well as threatening the jobs of my constituents and their public services, the deal threatens their rights at work. Any new workers’ rights protections from the EU enacted after the transition period would not apply to the UK, and if we fell into the backstop—an agreement that we cannot leave unilaterally—workers’ rights would be frozen. It would leave UK workers and trade unions unable to take complaints to the European Court of Justice, despite the Court’s responsibility for this. The Tory right want to cut back on workers’ rights in their ideological vision of Brexit Britain. This deal makes it far too easy for that to happen.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I approach this debate with a sense of disappointment, the same disappointment that I felt when I decided to campaign for, and vote for, Brexit. I did so not because I had an ideological phobia of the EU, but because I believed that the EU was going backwards, that the UK’s interests were diverging from it, and that without reform it was doomed to steady but terminal decline. That reform was not forthcoming. However, I do not want to repeat what was said in the debates in the run-up to the referendum, as, I fear, many Members have in recent weeks and, indeed, today. This debate is about the deal that is now before us. The country voted to leave on 23 June 2016, as did my constituency. The Government pledged to implement “what you decide” in their little booklet costing £9.3 million. At the time of the 2017 election the two main parties secured 82% of the vote, and both pledged to implement the referendum result. The people have given us no alternative instruction since then, and manifestos have not been rewritten.
The campaign to sideline the referendum result has been marked by two, I think, disingenuous approaches. The first is that it has all become a bit too complicated, so should we not just call the whole thing off? The second is a constant embellishment of the horrors of post-Brexit economic forecasts, which have dually encouraged remain voters to believe that the result could be reversed and encouraged EU negotiators to believe the same, which makes any terms for our departure doubly unpalatable.
I have discussed my view with my constituents, and more than 1,000 have written to me urging me to vote against this deal. In contrast, only a few dozen have urged me to support it. Today I should be welcoming a meaningful vote for a proposal that delivers the Brexit for which I campaigned and for which my constituents and the country voted, but alas, I cannot do that, because this proposal does not deliver Brexit. Its unprecedented terms have the potential to undermine our sovereignty and the Union of the United Kingdom like nothing before, and I am deeply worried for the future of Brexit after the shambolic way in which the whole issue has been handled by the Government in recent days.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I have a simple question for my hon. Friend, and for others who have difficulty in voting for the deal. If we do not vote for it, what will happen to the rights of United Kingdom nationals living in the EU27 after 29 March?
Tim Loughton
That is up to the Government to negotiate. They have failed to produce the immigration White Paper for which we have been waiting for some time, and they really need get on with answering questions like my hon. Friend’s and providing some certainty.
Many Members have used metaphors for our present predicament. Let me add another to the mix. It is like buying a house that you have only seen from the outside. You hand over the full asking price at the outset, upfront. You sign all the legal transaction documents without even agreeing on the fixtures, fittings and completion date, or indeed knowing whether the immigration status of your family allows you to live there. Only after that do you commission a survey, the results of which you do not share with your family despite eventually finding out that the neighbours have an unlimited right of way across your garden and unfettered access to your garden pond—and you have no indication of when you will be able to move in. Who in their right mind would agree to such a deal on buying a house, let alone on such an important issue as the future constitutional basis of our whole country?
My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), in an excellent speech—he is welcome to the Back Benches if he is going to make more speeches like that—described this as a deal in name only, and said that it was another case of difficult decisions being kicked into the long grass. Above all, what we need now, and have needed for some time, is certainty: certainty for our citizens, certainty for our businesses and investors, certainty for our fishermen, our farmers and many more. Yet the political agreement that accompanies this document—which sounds good—is littered with conditional phrases such as “agree to develop”, “intend to consider”, “will explore the possibility”, and “best endeavours”. That is not concrete enough for me to feel that I can sign up to it. My biggest fear is that this deal only extends the uncertainty—now confirmed by the Attorney General’s advice—over how long we will continue to be rule takers for our tariffs, our regulations, our alignment requirements, our competition laws and our trade deals, and the uncertainty over the integrity of our whole United Kingdom and our sovereignty.
As for Northern Ireland, the EU has spent the last two years declining to agree a practical arrangement for the border, despite facing the real and present danger of that ending in a no-deal Brexit that would see no handover of £39 billion, and the serious disorder that a no deal could bring in the short term at least. What I do not understand is why on earth the Prime Minister thinks the EU will agree to a solution to this, I think, much overhyped and largely fabricated problem of Northern Ireland in the next two years when the cheque will have been signed and a legally binding framework deal agreed. What leverage will we have left to secure mutually beneficial terms in all the outstanding issues to be resolved to avoid an interminable backstop—and there are many issues still to be resolved? It is unthinkable that we should sign a deal that compromises our sovereignty and the ability of this House and this Government, answerable to our peoples, indefinitely to set our own laws.
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that the perverseness of this is that it is putting us in a worse position than the status quo?
Tim Loughton
I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is right. There are some advantages to the position we are in now that we sign away in this never-ending backstop, transition, waiting-room phase that we are going to be stuck in. For all those reasons, I cannot support a deal that has an open-ended backstop at its heart. We need a clean, global Brexit on terms on which both partners can confidently plot their future beyond 2020 to our mutual benefit—no more kicking into the long grass; no more avoiding taking difficult decisions. It does not make that decision any easier by having endless transitions and further discussions and negotiations lasting years and years. We have to grasp the reality.
Where is a crack team of the best brains across the UK and EU working on credible, practical, technology-based solutions for the Northern Ireland-Irish border, for example? Surely that should have been our biggest priority for some time if the backstop hinged on it, but I do not think I am alone in looking in vain for any sense of urgency here.
Those who have come up with no practical solutions for a workable Brexit deal, despite having stood on a Conservative or Labour manifesto at the last election that pledged to deliver Brexit, should stop kidding themselves and stop conning the British public that everything will be magically resolved by a second referendum. If it were to come up with a different result from the first referendum, why should 17.4 million people who voted in good faith, many for the first time ever, accept the result? If it were to come up with the same result, how much more time will be wasted, how many more resources will be wasted and how many further damaging delays will be caused? And given the huge divisions resulting from the first referendum, how does repeating that bruising experience do anything to help to bring the country back together again? Surely our current travails would be exacerbated even further, if that were possible.
So for me there is only one alternative—to resoundingly reject this framework deal in the House when we vote next Tuesday. It will send out a strong message to the EU that, while there is much in the agreement we can sign up to, and much that can be negotiated in subsequent negotiations, an unbridled, non-time-limited backstop makes it completely unworkable. If the EU is serious about achieving a mutually beneficial relationship, it must acknowledge that, re-engage accordingly and come up with more realistic terms that this House then can show a lead in agreeing to in determining our future and bringing back some degree of the certainty that everyone is screaming out for.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
In June 2016, the country voted by a narrow majority to leave the European Union. The Prime Minister is offering us a deal and says we should vote for it because it delivers the will of the narrow majority. She also threatens us with the prospect of a no-deal Brexit, with all the truly damaging consequences for our economy and for people’s livelihoods. So what is my duty as an MP to resolve this matter in the light of the 2016 referendum? Do I have to vote for any Brexit that is put in front of me? The duty of an MP in our representative democracy is to listen to the people and respect their views, and to use our own judgment as to what is best for our constituents and the country. Keeping this balance is at the heart of the matter before us.
Nobody can deny that the referendum happened or the result it produced. In the past two years, we have been confronted by many worrying reports of how the leave campaign manipulated the campaign in an improper way, and we should be deeply concerned about the threat to our democracy that such manipulation poses. However, the result has not been nullified and the Government had a duty to find a Brexit that was good for the country, so I have looked at the deal in front of us and asked two questions. Does the deal result in us leaving the EU? It does. Does it protect the long-term interests of our country? It does not. Why should I vote for it if I truly believe that it is not in the interests of my constituents or the country?
James Heappey
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, my near neighbour, for giving way. If we are to leave the European Union, does she believe that the Liberal Democrats should campaign thereafter to rejoin it?
Wera Hobhouse
A deal has been put in front of us, and I am looking to see whether it is in the best interests of the country.
The Prime Minister has refused to work with Parliament to find a consensus. She rushed off and drew up her red lines, which made it impossible to find reasonable alternatives, and she is now trying to bully Parliament into forgetting what is good for the country. She tries to make us think that our only duty is to vote for her deal and deliver a Brexit of any form. If the Government had won the argument, and if a good Brexit were possible, this would be a very different debate. However, if no particular deal put before Parliament is a good deal compared with EU membership, what should Parliament do? Should we vote for this deal just because it is here, and because it is not as bad as crashing out? No, we should not. To do so would be to violate a deep principle and a duty that no MP can escape from, which is to use our own informed judgment. I encourage my colleagues across the House to look into their hearts and ask themselves whether this is the deal that is best for the country.
The Prime Minister is using a different argument. She says that we have to leave the EU even if it is bad for the country, because the people voted for it. She suggests that the dutiful thing for MPs to do, in the light of the referendum, is to vote for something even if we believe it is not good for the country, but that would make a nonsense of our representative democracy. I have been elected as an MP to employ my own informed judgment when voting. I have never yet seen a proposal for a good Brexit. In every aspect, it has become plain to see that leaving the EU is making us economically poorer, less influential and less able to control our own destiny.
Even the Government have given up telling us that this deal offers anything better than EU membership. All they do is reiterate that it delivers the will of the people, but no MP should be obliged to vote for something that they believe not to be good, or no worse than what we already have. On the contrary, we have a duty to do the opposite. Does this mean that we should defy the will of the people? No. We can legitimately reject any particular Brexit deal in accordance with our own informed judgment, but Parliament cannot move from there and cancel Brexit. This House cannot call off Brexit. Only the people can do that, and that is the true meaning of the referendum result in 2016.
When Parliament decides that no Brexit deal is good enough, Parliament is stuck. At this point, the decision has to go back to the people. That is how our democracy works. It balances our representative democracy with the fact that we have had a referendum. Our representative democracy does not demand that MPs surrender their judgment. This Parliament has spent the last two years trying to find a Brexit that is good for the country. If no such Brexit can be found that commands a majority in this House, MPs must agree to go back to the people. In my judgment, this deal is not good for the country. It would be a catastrophic mistake, and I will vote against it. As I have said many times before in this place, I believe that the only way forward is a people’s vote.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
This country voted for Brexit, and it is incumbent on the House and the Government to deliver just that. The people who voted for Brexit did not vote for something that they did not understand. They voted for a land of opportunity and for freedom: freedom over our laws and borders, and the ability to trade freely, which we cannot do as members of the EU.
Today and over the next couple of days, we are asked to consider a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration. Amazingly, the withdrawal agreement has everything the EU wants in it, and would be binding. The political declaration, which looks at our future trading agreements and relationship, is what we in the UK want, and guess what? That is not binding.
In the west country, the impact on the fishing industry would be devastating. A clear link is intended between our ability to fish and reaching some form of economic deal. Voting for the deal would be damaging not only to my fishermen but to the country as a whole. Most importantly, it would not, in any shape, size or form, deliver Brexit. The motion is a triumph of hope over experience. Our experience of the EU is generally, “This is what we want. You can have as many goes at it as you like, but it is that and nothing else. We will not move.”
If we vote for this agreement, we will remain a rule taker from the European Court of Justice on environmental and employment matters; even the withdrawal agreement will ultimately, if there is a dispute, be determined by the ECJ. As has been discussed, we will have no right to leave unilaterally. We have all now seen the Attorney General’s advice; I do not really need to say more, do I?
We will be unable to pursue independent trade deals. The agreement does not say that we cannot, but because we are bound to strict equivalence with the EU in many areas of legislation, we are very unattractive, as the Americans have already said. If we stick to the EU’s rulebook, we cannot do what one normally does in a trade deal: agree tariffs and the methods of rule and regulation to ensure an equivalent outcome in both countries.
As we have heard said very emotionally, the backstop threatens the integrity of the UK, and would potentially put a border down the Irish sea. That is not acceptable; it breaks the Union. The extension period will continue the uncertainty for business, not bring it to an end, as many seem to think.
Quite a number of amendments have been tabled. They will not improve matters. What do they do? They have a go at sorting out the backstop by removing or time-limiting it, but the backstop is not the only problem with the agreement, so that will not work. There is also an amendment requiring another referendum. I am afraid that I have to disagree with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse); the people have spoken, and we must accept that. It is not for us to say to the people, “Try again, and get a result that the EU wants.” That is simply not acceptable.
The Opposition’s amendment would keep us in the customs union, which would absolutely disempower us from doing any trade deals. Worst of all, none of the amendments would stop us paying £39 billion—and according to the Office for National Statistics, it is no longer that but £46 billion. If we extend our relationship, which we could do for a very long time, we continue making annual payments.
Next Tuesday, we will be asked to take a meaningful vote. Those who think that supporting the agreement is the only thing they can do to deliver Brexit should think again. That is absolutely not right. There is another option—I wish there were others, too, but there is no more time; 29 March is almost upon us.
Alberto Costa
My hon. Friend says that there is simply not enough time. I pose the same question that I asked my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton): on what rights will UK nationals—1 million of whom reside in EU27 countries—rely on 29 March 2019?
Anne Marie Morris
My hon. Friend has asked a very sensible question, to which I will give an answer.
I am afraid that I reject the description of what will happen as crashing out or as falling over the precipice. We will go out on a World Trade Organisation deal, and that will be very much to our benefit. We do 98% of our trade on WTO arrangements. I do not agree that the Government are not prepared, because they are. I have listened to proposals from most Government Departments, and I do not agree that suddenly there will be chaos. I do not dispute that there will be a bumpy ride, but we are prepared. I can also tell hon. Members that, from the evidence I have seen on the Public Accounts Committee, those on the other side in Calais are no more in favour of chaos than we are in Dover, so please—
Mr Grieve
Why not? You get another minute. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way.
I have just two points. First, my hon. Friend talks about the WTO. If I understand her correctly, she therefore expects to get a whole series of deals from the EU around the WTO arrangements. Otherwise, she has not answered the question of our hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). Secondly, I assume she also believes that the Belfast agreement should simply be ripped up, disregarded and reneged upon by the UK Government.
Anne Marie Morris
As one lawyer to another, I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that he has misrepresented the way the WTO works. It does not require lots of other deals. It takes us out and enables us to look at all sorts of options—we could move into a Canada-style free trade agreement. There are many things that we could do.
I take issue with the amendment my right hon. and learned Friend tabled yesterday. Many people think that, at the end of the day, it will empower us to say, “Okay, if you don’t like this withdrawal agreement, this House has the power to stop us going out”—as he would say—“with no deal.” As I have said, there is no such thing as no deal. As a matter of law, as I understand it—from lawyer to lawyer—the power of such a motion cannot bind this House and cannot stop article 50 triggering on 29 March.
I say to those who are thinking of supporting the arrangement put forward by the Prime Minister because it is the only way: “Think again. That is not Brexit. There is another way.” Rather than buying time and extending the uncertainty, we should go out on WTO arrangements. We will then be free to trade and free to get the sort of deal that this country absolutely needs and deserves.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I was not elected to this place to make my constituents poorer or less safe. I do not believe that anyone from any party came into politics to do that, but if we vote for this deal we will be doing just that. The evidence is clear: leaving the European Union will make us poorer as an economy, as a country and as a society. It will put people’s livelihoods at risk and the future of our children in jeopardy. I will vote against this deal.
For me, this is deeply personal. I have studied in France and Spain; I have worked in Brussels and Madrid; I speak French and Spanish; and I call myself a citizen of both Wales and Europe. I am proud of the European Union for bringing countries together in unity and peace. Members may disagree with me, and that is their right, but anyone who says that we must leave the EU because of a vote that was taken two and a half years ago is mistaken.
The splits and divisions that we see across society are not going away. Extremists are waiting to expose the differences we see in our politics today, and our actions and words will scar Britain for decades to come. Now is the time for leadership, to be brave and to stand up for what is right, not to blindly follow the path set out by previous Governments and Administrations. We were elected to do the right thing by our constituents—those hard-working families and people who depend on the jobs that a stable and flourishing economy provides; on well-run and efficient public services; and on high performing schools, universities and hospitals. Being a full EU member keeps us safe from terrorism and international crime. It keeps us in the crucial networks that our Prime Minister fought to keep us a part of when she was Home Secretary—access that she cannot now guarantee.
We have a heard a lot of nonsense, repetition and bluster in this House. Many Conservative Members, such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) have been using the issue for their own ends. They are ego-driven, nostalgic for a past empire and an imperial nation, which is a dangerous attitude from Members ignorant of this nation’s history. Brexit has dominated everything here. It is the single biggest issue facing us since the second world war, it will have repercussions for many years to come and we know that other important business is being sidelined as a result. This week and next, world leaders are coming together in Katowice in Poland to decide how to tackle climate change. It is the single biggest issue facing the world and our future place in it, but one would not know it here. This place is embroiled in an act of immense self-harm: Brexit. The UK should be leading the way on climate action. Instead, it has tangled itself up in untruths and falsehoods about Brexit.
We have heard many of those untruths over the past two years. We have heard that getting a good deal would be the easiest thing ever, that we hold all the cards in the negotiations, and that there will be £350 million a week for the NHS. We are now hearing another lie: that we should back the Prime Minister’s blindfold, lose-lose deal or plummet off a cliff edge with a no-deal Brexit. We know that that is a false choice. This blindfold Brexit deal is a fantasy. Major decisions are being postponed, leaving us forever negotiating our future relationship with the EU. We also know that there is no Brexit deal that can meet all the promises that have been made. The real choice now is whether to go ahead with this blindfold fantasy or stick with the best deal, which we already have as a member of the EU.
There is still time to change course and do the right thing. Many people come up to me in my Cardiff North constituency and ask me to put a stop to the madness. Many of them actually voted leave two years ago, but they are changing their minds. Businesses and people are frantic with worry. The only reason why the Prime Minister has received half-hearted support for the deal from business is that it provides a few years of transition for businesses to plan their move out of this country. The real risk with this so-called deal is that it leaves absolutely everything unresolved—indefinite uncertainty. That is not what people want. Democracy means that only the people can sort this out, which is why we must ask them in a people’s vote on the final deal.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
It is often said and has been said today, particularly by strong remainers, that we cannot possibly know why each of the 17.4 million or so people voted for Brexit. That is obvious, because there are any number of reasons why people voted leave, but we can be confident that few of them did so in the hope that we would end up with a deal like the one we are debating today. In a legalistic sense, the withdrawal agreement removes us from the EU, but for all intents and purposes its effect is to bind us to the rules of the EU while removing our ability to influence those rules.
I will not focus specifically on the transition period today, although it is certainly true that the EU is given vast, possibly unprecedented, powers over the UK during that time, and that is uncomfortable, but it could well be necessary. The issue is with what happens afterwards. It is also possible that, during the transition period, we will be able to agree a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU and, as a consequence, we may be able to avoid the backstop, but that seems incredibly unlikely. The backstop effectively keeps us in the customs union and it subjects us to EU rules, with no UK say at all in framing those rules.
We have heard today from numerous speakers that the backstop would divide Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK and would prevent us from striking meaningful new free trade agreements with other countries. The Attorney General gave a magnificent performance in Parliament a couple of days ago, in which he described the backstop in three words: undesirable, unattractive and unsatisfactory.
But the biggest concern about the backstop is that we cannot leave it without the permission of the EU, which is not disputed. The question, then, is what incentive there is for the EU to negotiate in good faith. What would stop the backstop becoming a trap, by becoming the long-term basis for the UK-EU relationship? Given that any EU country could veto our departure from the backstop, the likelihood of being stuck in the backstop is surely very high indeed. We would have to wait until each and every EU country had its fill before agreeing finally to let us out. Yes, we could leave the backstop, as we have heard again and again, if we could prove that the EU is not acting in good faith, but what on earth does that even mean in practical terms?
The withdrawal agreement has united leavers and remainers in an extraordinary manner. I shared a platform a few weeks ago with the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), my constituency neighbour, and it was the first time in two years that we have agreed on something relating to the EU.
We have known for some time that this deal has virtually no chance of making it through Parliament. We know that it jeopardises the Conservative party’s relationship with the DUP, which is critical to keeping the Government going. So it is odd that the Government continue so vehemently to flog what is so obviously a dead horse.
I do not agree that the choice is between this deal, no deal and no Brexit, and I do not agree with those people who gleefully hold up this deal as proof somehow that Brexit is impossible or a fantasy. All it really proves is that those in charge of conducting the negotiations have not succeeded. Mostly they have not succeeded because they are miserable about the referendum result and have treated the exercise as disaster management. They set out to look at all the risks of Brexit—of course there are risks in such a transition—but they have failed to look for the opportunities as well.
We are one of the biggest economies in the world. We are geographically well placed to continue playing a big role in world affairs. Our language is the global language. Our judiciary is trusted. Despite all the rubbish that is happening at the moment, our democracy remains the envy of the world. Our legal system provides more certainty and clarity than pretty much anywhere else in the world. And people want to live, work and raise families here.
Had we never joined the EU in the first place, does anyone honestly believe that it would not be biting off our hand to agree a comprehensive free trade agreement today? Of course it would. There is still time to pursue the option that Brussels was always expecting, and that makes the most sense for the world’s fifth largest economy: the foundation of a comprehensive free trade agreement based on mutual respect and mutual recognition.
There are many in this House who share my views about the deal but whose answer is to press for a second referendum, which would be madness. There was a consensus at the time of the referendum that the outcome would be honoured. Solemn promises from the Prime Minister were echoed on both sides of the House.
We all remember some people brashly saying that it did not matter how people voted because the EU would never let us out anyway. I remember those people being dismissed as if they were lunatics, but that did happen in Denmark, France and the Netherlands, and I think it happened twice in Ireland. I was one of the people who dismissed those concerns as conspiracy theories. How extraordinary and how depressing that there is now a real chance those people could have been right all along.
I understand that some people remain mortified by the outcome of the vote, and of course this place is filled with extremely clever people who could potentially find a clever way of stopping Brexit one way or another, but it would demonstrate a remarkable lack of wisdom. A failure to honour the referendum would surely cause an irreparable breakdown in the relationship between the people and the authorities. It would usher in a new era of extreme politics.
There is no reason why the UK should be immune to the trends that are plaguing almost every other country in Europe: in France, where Le Pen leads in the polls; in Germany, where the Alternative für Deutschland, founded in only 2013, is now the second biggest party; in Austria, where the Freedom party is part of the Government; and in Italy, Spain, Sweden, Greece and so on.
If the gut fear that so many people have, the feeling that the political elite simply cannot be trusted, is utterly and completely confirmed, where will those mainstream voters go? It is madness. It could possibly, potentially, perhaps be justified if something truly seismic had happened, but it has not. Millions of pounds have been poured into a campaign to undermine the referendum and make people fear every aspect of Brexit, but the polls have barely moved; they are still within the margin of error. I believe the Government are going to lose this vote next week, and I am afraid to say that I hope they lose it. Then, either this Prime Minister or, if she will not do it, another Prime Minister must take this deal back to the EU and change it.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who I know prizes the environment highly, although he did not mention it in his speech, perhaps because it might not have gone along with his argument today, as he is a leaver.
Zac Goldsmith
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words. She is right to say that I did not mention it, but I have given three lengthy speeches about why Brexit, if done properly, would be a boon—a great thing—for the environment.
Catherine West
I beg to disagree, but I will mention the environment later in my short speech, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman.
I wanted to start by talking about the language we have been using in recent days. The particular term that has caused a lot of concern in my constituency is “queue jumpers”, and I was pleased to hear that the Prime Minister apologised for that in the House the day before yesterday. We know that so many EU citizens in my constituency have been worried by that term. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and I share the London Borough of Haringey, where 42,000 EU citizens are resident. They are friends, colleagues, NHS workers and neighbours, and they are a valued part of our diverse community. It is important that we in this House do not forget the importance of having that respectful debate, despite our differences of opinion and views.
Obviously, the economy has to be mentioned in relation to this deal, because many have warned about the danger of this deal. In particular, we know that the Governor of the Bank of England has said that all of the assessments identify significant negative outcomes for the economy, resulting in hard-working families facing food price hikes of 10%, businesses facing increased friction when trading and the country as a whole facing yet another recession. I find it difficult to believe that anybody could vote for a deal that could lead to another recession, given that we have not really recovered from the one in 2008, following the global financial crash.
Equally, we have no firm or clear commitments on participation in Europol and Eurojust, and several concerns about security arrangements, which have been highlighted by not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), but others. We know that human trafficking, international crime, drug smuggling, terrorism and illegal immigration are all issues that are tackled most effectively through deep and integrated international co-operation, which is, logically, done in particular with our closest neighbours.
On geopolitics, just a few weeks ago we marked the centenary of the armistice. It is not stretching things too far to bring that into this debate and say just how moving it was to see the German President lay a wreath at the Cenotaph. It was a reminder of the importance of internationalism, and the specific role the EU has played in maintaining peace across the continent and promoting that ideal worldwide. We speak about NATO, defence and security over and over again in this Chamber, but we all know that it is the people-to-people contact, the country-to-country contact, the Erasmus students and the internationalism that underpins that security and makes that relationship meaningful. At a time when the liberal order is once again under threat, with the rise of an expansionist Russia, a volatile American foreign policy and the far right once again on the march on the streets of Europe, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned, now is not the time to distance ourselves from our European friends.
It is abundantly clear that this deal cannot command a majority in this House, for the reasons I have set out, as well as others. Likewise, we all know that the destination of no deal will not be accepted by a majority of hon. Members. It is pleasing to see so many Members, regardless of which side of the EU referendum debate they are on, say today that no deal would be an act of vandalism. So where does that leave us? Like many Members from both sides of the House, I have continued to make the case for a second vote. The hon. Member for Richmond Park is quite right to say that we must respect the referendum result and must not be patronising about why people voted the way they did. In the same way, once the democracy switch is flicked, the only way to unflick it is to flick it off.
Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) made a valuable contribution. If someone needs a hip replacement, they go to see the surgeon, and in consenting to the operation they know exactly what they are getting. A second meaningful vote for people would really help us Members of Parliament to make the decision. It would be completely different if we had a Parliament in which there was an overwhelming majority and it was clear as a bell, but given that the result was so close in June 2016 and that we are living through such unusual times in the House of Commons, it is important that the people assist us to make this crucial decision.
I welcome the fact that the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the shadow Brexit Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), have said that a second vote has not been taken off the table. I look forward to progress on that position.
On multiple occasions, the Prime Minister has refused to consider the option of a second referendum, on the basis that the decision was made in 2016, but nothing ever stands still in politics. As we go forward and see that each week we are losing £500 million from our economy, it is important to be a little more decisive and provide the opportunity, quite quickly, to have a second vote. We can then put the issue to bed and focus on other key issues, including the NHS, schools funding and universal credit—all the things that we know our constituents want us to get a wriggle on with.
I recognise the result of the referendum. As mentioned in my intervention on the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), I have serious concerns about the way Vote Leave ran the campaign. I should emphasise that the illegitimate use of social media, which the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee is now looking into, along with the questionable use of political donations and the question marks over whether some of the funds used may have come from abroad, are all crucial to our democracy. Each time we have a democratic exercise, we learn more from it. It is crucial that if we ask the public a further question on this issue, we get it right, maintain a positive tone and ensure that we have the best standards of democracy. I look forward to hearing other contributions and hope that we eventually get that second vote.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
This will surprise you, Mr Speaker: I am old enough to have voted in the 1975 referendum, and I voted yes to stay in the common market. But what I voted for then changed rather substantially over the years, and I became somewhat concerned about the way the EU had developed. When it came to the last referendum, I was for leave—on balance, but I think that was the right decision. The truth of the matter is that it was not to do with what was on the side of a bus, but that most of our citizens have had to live with the EU over several decades. There was just that general feeling that the EU was not very responsive to their needs. The British people have a certain native common sense that tells us that we could do better on our own. Compared with the 1970s, when Britain was a rather depressing place, Britain is doing really well in the world, and it has been doing over the past 20 years. The reality is that it was a vote of confidence in this country from the British people. We can do a lot better. We can be an open, flexible, dynamic economy in the world.
Leaving the EU was always going to be a messy business, because any kind of divorce is, and there are compromises to be made. I give credit to the Prime Minister for the work that she and the negotiators have done. It is a difficult job and probably a thankless one, and it will be even more thankless next Tuesday when we get the House’s decision. There are some good things in the agreement and I could agree with a lot of it as a compromise to see us out of the EU, but as a Conservative Unionist, I find the Irish backstop very difficult to deal with.
I do not want to treat any area of the United Kingdom differently from my own constituency. There is a danger of our getting hung up in that arrangement. The advice of the Attorney General is very clear. The Prime Minister needs to go back to the EU and say, “Deal on providing that we have a date to the backstop.” If there is a date, many people’s fears about our getting hung up in the arrangement and not being able to do deals would disappear. We have already heard that there is no intent either north or south of the border to establish a hard border. My fear is that the backstop will be used as a device during the negotiations over trade and over fish—as President Macron has already said—to screw the British down and give us a bad deal.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Given that he supported the Common Market, does he accept that there may be an alternative, such as an EEA-EFTA style deal, that would give us back the fisheries, remove the need for the backstop and provide the kind of reassurance that he seeks?
Sir Robert Syms
It would not be my favourite choice, but it may well be a choice that the House will have to consider depending on how we end up next year.
The reality is that I hope we can finesse the current agreement. Ultimately, the EU must accept that the backstop is unacceptable to Parliament. If it accepts that, there is a fairly good chance that the deal will go through. The deal, without the backstop, might be rather better than the EFTA proposals. We will have to see how the Prime Minister does. When there has been to-ing and fro-ing between member Governments of the EU, referendums and agreements, it is not unheard of for Governments to go back to the EU and say, “Our people will not wear it, think again.” It would take only some very modest changes to get the deal done. I hope that the Prime Minister listens to what the House says next Tuesday. I am afraid that I will be voting against the deal in its current form, but I will be receptive to modification of the backstop and then I hope that we will be in a position in which we can move on.
I am unhappy about voting against my Government. I have been a Member of Parliament for more than 20 years. Since coming into government in 2010, I have voted against the Government only once. This will be the second time. I hope that I never have to do it again because I believe that politics is a team game and I want my team to win and I want the Prime Minister to do the best for our nation. Unfortunately, though, I am a Conservative and Unionist and the backstop is something that I cannot accept.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
There can be no doubt that this is a defining moment in our history. Our global economic and political success is at stake. I represent a constituency that voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the European Union and I stand here today to make this speech on their behalf. Although the European Union is not perfect, it is a union that has helped to bring so much peace and prosperity to our nation and to our continent. To dismiss our 45 years of membership diminishes what we have collectively achieved and what is possible.
Turning to the theme of today’s debate, we should not forget the benefits that EU membership has brought to the country through immigration. Could our economy or our NHS thrive without it? Of course not. In England, 63,000 NHS staff are EU nationals—one third of these staff work in London. Across the capital, almost half of the home- building workforce is from the EU, yet over the course of the referendum and subsequent negotiations, I have frequently been saddened by the fact that freedom of movement has become a political football spoken of only in negative terms.
A few weeks ago, when I was speaking at a public meeting in my constituency, a constituent, an EU national, stood up and told me that she had made her life here and now feared that she was no longer welcome in this country. I assured her that she was welcome. Like many others, I am immensely proud of our multicultural community in south-east London, but the Government have provided nothing but uncertainty on this issue. It is irrefutable that immigration has aided our nation and our continent. We should be proud of what it has contributed and what it has helped us to achieve.
Let me now speak of my personal experience. As a teenager, I was given the opportunity to live and study in Italy through the European Union’s Leonardo da Vinci programme. Growing up in south-east London and attending my local school, the idea of being offered, at the age of 18, the chance to temporarily move to Italy was almost incomprehensible. It was a completely life-changing experience, and I consider myself to be a citizen of the European Union. I want my son and all young people to have the same opportunities that I have had to live, work and travel freely within the EU. Instead, young people will be denied the chances of upward social mobility and co-existing with our European partners, compounded by an uncertain future of potential economic gloom as a result of this poorly negotiated deal.
When the withdrawal Bill was before the House this time last year, I tabled an amendment highlighting the work that Europe had done on family-friendly employment rights and gender equality. If my amendment, which lost by 14 votes, had passed, it would have ensured that Parliament was kept informed of changes in European law, making sure that we kept pace and did not fall behind on the equalities agenda. Rights in the workplace have been fought for long and hard, and a large number of employment rights on our statute book come from Europe, including rules on paid holiday, working hours, pregnancy and maternity rights, TUPE and age discrimination, to name but a few. Sadly, some Conservative Members would not think twice about tearing them up, and the workplace risks becoming even more precarious and insecure without EU safeguards.
I respect the outcome of the 2016 referendum, but nobody in the House could argue that things have not changed in that time. The political landscape has changed. The economic landscape has changed. Public opinion has changed. All the while, the Government are trying to force through answers to questions that were not on the ballot paper in 2016, and expect constituents to follow blindly.
When I was elected to Parliament, I vowed to my constituents that I would not support any form of Brexit that would be detrimental to them. London voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the European Union, and by a factor of two to one in Lewisham West and Penge. As my constituents’ representative and voice in this place, it is primarily their future that I consider when casting my vote on this motion.
This terrible deal would result in a miserable Brexit for the UK, threatening business confidence, jobs, our NHS and the future of young people. The biggest issues will remain unresolved while we follow rules over which we will no longer have any influence. I say to those on the Government Benches that these negotiations have been flawed from start to finish, and the results of this catastrophic approach are apparent for all to see. With time still left before the end of March, this does not have to be a binary choice between the Government’s deal and no deal.
I do not believe that anyone voted in the referendum to be worse off or less secure. The people should be given a voice again. They should be empowered to decide whether they want their future to be carved out by the Prime Minister’s deal, on which even her own MPs cannot unite, or whether they want an alternative. Given the shambles of the deal now before us, surely it is now time for the decision to go back to the public, with a people’s vote with an option to remain in the EU. With so much at stake—our prosperity, our success and our security—it is only right that we return the decision to the people and give them their say once more.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a great privilege to speak in this very important debate, and it is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves). Although we come at this from very different perspectives, I respect her passion in speaking up for her constituency.
The people of Cornwall have a long history of being a little bit awkward, a little bit independently minded and occasionally even a little bit rebellious. There was the famous time when 20,000 Cornishmen marched on this place because the King had put one of our bishops in the Tower of London. Even since way back then, the Cornish have had a slightly awkward relationship with authority, so it was no surprise whatever to me that Cornwall voted to leave the EU in 2016.
St Austell and Newquay—the constituency that I have the privilege to represent—actually had the biggest leave vote in the whole of Cornwall. However, it is important that we recognise that the vote was not just about our relationship with the European Union. It was about much more than that. Much of it was about people who felt disconnected, neglected and often ignored by what we might call the establishment. Thousands who had never before voted in any election voted to leave. Despite “Project Fear” and their being told continuously that this decision would be terrible for them, they voted courageously for us to leave the European Union because they wanted their voice to be heard and they wanted to know that their vote mattered.
That is part of the challenge before this House today and in the coming weeks. This is no longer just about Brexit; it is about the heart of our democracy. It is about who runs this country, whether we are truly a democracy where the will of the people prevails, and whether we in the House listen to those who have voted for us and sent us here to implement the decision that they have made.
Yesterday, a constituent of mine pointed out that on 22 June 2016 he wrote this and posted it on Facebook:
“The day has finally come, tomorrow is EU referendum Day where we all get to vote on a once in a lifetime opportunity to decide whether we are in are out of the EU. I’m not going to persuade anyone either way I don’t think it will make a difference what the result is. We aren’t leaving Europe ever and no vote by the people is going to change that. There are far too many higher powers with vested interests in the status quo to let a silly little thing like democracy get in the way.”
He went on to say that if the vote was to leave,
“higher powers will set into motion a series of events that will prevent leaving ever happening. Because it has to be approved through Parliament. There will have to be White Papers, debates, amendments, more debates, more amendments, and plenty more political posturing from both sides of the argument. It won’t be settled in the next 3 years and will then become an issue for the next general election. And by then we will have served another 4 years under Europe anyway and so why would we want to leave now?”
I do not know if he was Mystic Meg or a prophet, but there is a great fear among many, many people that what he described all that time ago is exactly what is happening. There is a sense outside this place that we are in the middle of an establishment stitch-up that is trying to prevent what the people of this country voted for from happening.
When the amendment that some of my colleagues voted for was passed last night, a cheer went up with the sense that somehow a victory had been won over those on this side of the House who want to see a true and proper Brexit. That victory was not against people like me—it was against the 17.4 million people in this country who voted for leave, and believed in this place, and put their faith and trust in us to deliver what they voted for.
I do not support the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement because I do not believe that it delivers what we have promised time and again as a party. It does not deliver what we put in our manifesto last year when we said that we would respect the result of the referendum. It puts this country in a worse place in terms of negotiating than we are now. I do not understand those who say that what we failed to achieve in the past two years when we have had cards to play will somehow be better achieved when we have removed all our cards. We have had the £39 billion to bargain with. We have had the ability to walk away from the table to bargain with. How we think we are going to get a better deal from the EU once we no longer have those cards to play, I fail to understand.
People will say, “What is the alternative if we vote this deal down?” That is a very good question that I have considered very, very seriously, but I will not be pushed out of fear into voting for something I do not believe is right for this country simply because people tell me that the consequences could be serious. We have to face that. I do not want no deal. I want the Prime Minister to go back to the EU and say that there are elements in the withdrawal agreement that are not acceptable to the House and need to be removed in order for the House to support it. Obviously, that is primarily around the backstop. If the EU will not do that, under the legislation, no deal is the default position. Those in the House who say that no deal should never, ever be considered are effectively saying that we can never leave the EU until the EU agrees terms with us. That is admitting defeat. That is saying that we are effectively a colony of the EU and we can never leave of our own volition, but only when it agrees terms with us. I do not believe that that is right. It is not what the future of this nation is about.
When we vote against the deal next week, I hope that the Prime Minister will listen to the genuine concerns of many of us across the House who believe that this deal does not deliver what we promised the people of this country, and that she will go back to the EU with a positive message. We need to believe in the future of our country—not just our right to be free and independent of the EU, but our ability to deliver a proper Brexit and enable this country to flourish outside the EU.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I voted in favour of triggering article 50, so that negotiations could begin on Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, but having read the result of the Prime Minister’s negotiations—the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration—I will vote against what has been negotiated. The majority of my constituents voted to leave the EU, but I do not believe that they voted to make themselves poorer or to jeopardise their safety. I am not taking this decision lightly. I believe that it would be enormously damaging for the people of this country, and in particular my constituents, if Britain were to leave the EU on the basis of what the Prime Minister has negotiated.
Fundamental to my concern is the fact that the withdrawal agreement deals only with the process of Britain’s departure from the European Union. After December 2020, the only thing that has been agreed is a political declaration of a mere 26 pages that is extremely vague. In other words, if Parliament accepts the Prime Minister’s package, we have no real idea of what this country’s relationship with the EU will be like in the long term. It will be a blind exit and a step into the dark. We will be leaving the European Union on a wing and a prayer. The real negotiations on our long-term relationship will only begin in earnest once we have left the EU, during the transition process, and Britain will be in a weak bargaining position as a consequence. I am passionately concerned about that.
I am very concerned about the number of young people in my constituency who have expressed concern about the situation in which this country finds itself. They are concerned about their inability to travel around the EU and the reduction of opportunities if travel is restricted. They are concerned about the creation of a constantly inward-looking country, while their instincts teach them that they must be looking outwards to Europe and the world.
There is also concern in my constituency about the employment consequences of this deal. That is extremely important, because much of my constituency’s prosperity and the employment prospects of a large number of people depend on Britain having a positive relationship with our largest and nearest trading market—the European Union. This deal does not offer the prospect of such a positive relationship.
There are huge problems with the short-term withdrawal agreement, not least the weak commitments to workers’ rights, which have been highlighted by the TUC, and the prospect of weak environmental standards. There is also concern, as has been highlighted in the debate, about the security implications of the transitional agreement and beyond. Let us not forget that last year, the European arrest warrant resulted in 183 individuals being brought back from other European countries to face justice in this country. Because of the European arrest warrant, we have seen an increase in security and justice internationally.
My concern is that once we leave the EU and go beyond the transition period after December 2020, we are by no means certain what arrangements will be in place and what will be negotiated. It is quite possible that we will have to fall back on the kind of extradition agreements that we had in the past. Let us not forget the problem we have there, which is that France and Germany’s constitutions prevent them from entering into such extradition agreements. There is real concern about security and the rule of law, which have huge implications for our future.
In essence, that is why I will vote against the Prime Minister’s deal on 11 December, but I want to make the point that I am also strongly against any attempt to take Britain out of the European Union without an agreement. A no-deal Brexit would be disastrous for the people of my constituency, and the Prime Minister should not even contemplate such a course of action under any circumstance.
It is small wonder I have been approached by a constituent who is diabetic and insulin-dependent, and who is genuinely concerned about what will happen to his health if we leave the European Union without a deal and he cannot get his insulin. That concern can be replicated throughout the country time and again, and it is completely wrong that the Prime Minister is holding this sword of Damocles above the House of Commons.
This is an important decision that we will face next Tuesday. We should not underestimate the significance of the meaningful vote, but I honestly believe that this agreement is against the best interests of the people of this country and against the best interests of the people in my constituency. Therefore, I have no doubt in my mind that the best, correct and proper thing to do is to vote against the agreement.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David).
Since the EU referendum result in 2016, we have all been grappling with the result and what it means for our constituents and our country, and with how we should best respond in the interests of our country. I believe the public, rightly, are tired of Brexit. For many, it has become an issue that is far too abstract, legalistic and confusing. Frankly, they want us to get on with it, but our constituents are relying on us to get it right. This debate and vote may be one of the most important that right hon. and hon. Members in this place will have to make a decision on. Probably it is one of the most important votes, if not the most important vote, that we will cast in our parliamentary careers.
Almost everyone I have spoken to, whether or not they support this deal, has a huge amount of respect for the Prime Minister and admiration for the job that she is doing. Negotiating a Brexit deal with the European Union was an almost impossible job. I have never doubted the Prime Minister’s desire to achieve the best for our country, and she has poured her heart and soul into every aspect of these negotiations. My admiration for our Prime Minister is making this decision for me all the more difficult. It goes without saying that I am loyal to this Government and to this Prime Minister. Our country is undoubtedly better served by this Government than by any alternative. After 10 years in the Scottish Parliament and 18 months here, I understand the significance of even contemplating voting against my Government and colleagues. However, my job here is also to consider the national interests and those of my constituents. That is why I am listening carefully to contributions from all parts of the House during the course of this debate, and particularly those of Ministers in reaction to some of the concerns that colleagues, especially those on the Conservative Benches, have raised.
Part of my decision-making process has been considering what happens if Parliament rejects this agreement. We have been told it is this deal, no deal or Brexit could be stopped. The default position for this process is clear: we leave the EU at 11 pm on 29 March next year with no deal. That is due to both the EU treaty and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act which, when it was passed earlier this year, was amended to include the date and time of exit. In my view, it is regrettable that there has not been greater clarity from the Government about what will happen in the event, as seems increasingly likely, that this place does not give its support to the withdrawal agreement. We are being asked to support this agreement without any proper understanding of the alternatives. We are in effect balancing risks as part of our decision-making process—the risks associated with this agreement as opposed to the risks of the unknown.
Turning to the withdrawal agreement itself, the fishing industry along the Berwickshire coast in my constituency has been decimated in recent years. I know that many of my local fishermen and women are looking forward to a life outside the common fisheries policy. While I have been reassured by the words from the Prime Minister, I am less comforted by the views expressed by other European leaders, notwithstanding the fact that fishing could still be sacrificed as part of the trade deal negotiations. I am happy to accept the words of our Prime Minister and her commitment to Scotland’s fisheries, but my fear is that the precise arrangements will be decided at some point in the future. No Government can bind their successors, so no promise now will necessarily have any effect in the future.
As a Unionist, I also have serious concerns about the provisions for Northern Ireland, given that there will be at least a risk of Northern Ireland being treated substantially differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. That would certainly be contrary to the articles of Union, as I understand them. The main nationalist parties in Northern Ireland have signed up to the agreement. However, both the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party have said that they are completely opposed to it. That causes me a serious problem. Given the troubled history in Ireland, any constitutional change needs to have the support of both communities in Northern Ireland. Some say that the Unionists in Northern Ireland need to take a pragmatic approach and that they need to compromise. I would suggest that that fundamentally misunderstands Unionism in Northern Ireland. I have every sympathy with those in this place who represent Unionism in Northern Ireland, who have expressed concerns about the potential impact of the agreement on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom.
My fundamental concern is that so much of the EU withdrawal agreement is an agreement to agree something further down the line. The can is being kicked further down the road. As someone who studied law at Glasgow University and trained and worked at Freshfields along the road from here, one of my lasting memories from law school and from those teaching me how to draft legal documents is the danger of drafting something that could be construed as an agreement to agree. Why is that a problem? My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) touched on some of the political aspects, but the consequence is that agreements to agree lack sufficient certainty to constitute a legally enforceable commitment.
There have been many reassuring words about the high standard imposed by the “best endeavours” commitment in the withdrawal agreement, but the reality is that it is meaningless if the obligation itself lacks certainty. The withdrawal agreement was supposed to be a bridge to a permanent relationship with the EU, but the danger is that it will become the norm. We are putting off so many of the outstanding decisions for a later date.
I have wrestled with this for many hours and have lost much sleep over the past few weeks. I have spoken to many businesses and residents in my constituency. I am here to represent their views as their Member of Parliament. I am trying to reconcile my deep misgivings about the agreement with my loyalty to the Prime Minister and the Government. It is not easy. In fact, it is proving to be probably the hardest decision of my political life. I have until Tuesday to decide what I am going to do, and I am going to carefully judge what—[Interruption.] Perhaps SNP Members could show me some respect rather than mocking my decision-making process—I am wrestling with a very difficult decision on behalf of my constituents and my country.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
We have heard so much from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues about threatening to resign if Northern Ireland is treated any differently from anywhere else in the United Kingdom. His own Attorney General’s legal advice said it will be treated as a third country, but and he is still wrestling with it. It is patently clear. Have the courage of your convictions and vote this down. It is bad for Scotland, and it will be bad for the rest of the UK.
John Lamont
I have not threated to resign from anything. I have just reinforced the point that I am here to represent my constituents, many of whom have concerns about the withdrawal agreement. I am here, as somebody sitting on the Government Benches, to express such concerns and misgivings, and to try as honestly as I possibly can to articulate to the House, and hopefully to my constituents, the thought process I am going through. That will take as long as I need. I will certainly not be intimidated or bullied by SNP Members to make that decision any more quickly. I will take my time, and on Tuesday I will cast my vote for what I think is in the national interest and in the interests of my constituents.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
May I start by paying tribute to you, Mr Speaker, for your longevity in sitting through the business today and last night? I think your presence throughout the whole debate shows the importance of these deliberations. As many Members have already said, these are perhaps the most important votes we will ever face in our political career. I think we can safely say, Mr Speaker, that your bladder is considerably stronger than mine.
There is little doubt that people were misled during the referendum by those purporting to suggest that a land of milk and honey awaited if leave won. Two years later, reality bites and the British Government have been forced into signing a humiliating agreement and a political declaration that means that the British state, due to the intransigent policy pursued by the Prime Minister, will leave the European Union with absolutely no idea what the future trade arrangements with its largest trading partner will be after the transition phase.
At every step, the British Government have been outwitted by the European Commission. Its priorities were threefold: first, get the British Government to commit to paying their outstanding liabilities; secondly, preserve the Good Friday agreement, leading to the backstop; and thirdly, negotiate formally only the divorce proceedings before the end of the article 50 period. The British Government, on the other hand, seemed to think that they would be able to negotiate the terms of the final relationship and settle Brexit before the end of the article 50 period. The withdrawal agreement and the accompanying political declaration indicate that what the British Government are claiming as a diplomatic coup is nothing of the sort—it is a capitulation.
All this does not bode well for the detailed negotiations that will happen from March if the current policy is adopted. During those negotiations, the British Government will be a third country, outside the European Union and in a far more vulnerable position. I am not a professional trade negotiator, but it is crystal clear that in those circumstances, the larger participant in the negotiations—the European Union—will be able to squeeze the smaller participant. International trade is a brutal business, where the size and wealth of the market matters. Brexiteers point out that under current arrangements, EU countries collectively export more to the UK than the UK exports to the EU. That shows a gross misunderstanding of how international trade negotiations work. During the negotiations, the European Union’s objective will be to increase that disparity in its favour at the expense of UK producers.
Despite the stark economic reality, we face a Brexit policy being driven by the British Government and the Labour Opposition on the basis of scrapping freedom of movement, regardless of the fact that it is a reciprocal right that works both ways. British subjects will lose the right to work and live in 27 European states. In her obsession with curbing immigration, the Prime Minister set out red lines in her Mansion House speech that made the current shambles inevitable. Because of that, my colleagues and I voted against triggering article 50. From the very start, the Prime Minister has prioritised party management above the greater good. Like a salmon poacher, the approach of the British Government has been to massage the fantasies of Brexiteers, as opposed to being straight with the people of the UK that they were sold a false prospectus and that if Brexit was to be delivered, it would mean making people far poorer, with the poorest and most vulnerable hit worst.
In the September withdrawal agreement debate, I warned the British Government to take no deal off the political table. It served no purpose as a negotiating tactic with the European Union, which knew that the British state would never be willing to accept the economic damage of no deal or able to get itself ready for the eventualities of no deal by March. I also warned that threatening no deal would not bribe MPs into supporting the Prime Minister. We will wait to see whether my prophecy was correct on Tuesday evening next week. The House’s support for the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) last night effectively takes no deal off the political table in any case.
Right hon. and hon. Members and our constituents should be aware of the ruling of the advocate general in the European Court of Justice yesterday recommending that article 50 is revocable unilaterally by the British state. If that recommendation is adopted by the Court, it will clearly indicate that the Prime Minister put forward a false argument that it is a choice of her deal or no deal. This House or the British Government have the power to stop no deal at any time of their choosing. Considering the dire warnings of the British Government over recent weeks, the game of chicken that they have been playing with Members of the House now rebounds on them.
If the British Government’s policy is implemented, it will effectively mean leaving the European Union with absolutely no idea what the long-term future relationship will be following the end of the transition phase. The British Government have utilised the vagueness of the political declaration to try to appeal to kamikaze Brexiteers who favour the WTO option and more sensible politicians who seek a more formalised association-type agreement by saying that everything will be up for grabs during the transition phase. I have outlined the vulnerability of the negotiating position of the British state in those circumstances. The negotiations will be far more complex than the withdrawal agreement, with far more at stake.
Writing in the Western Mail last month, I described the events of the last two years as a tickle fight compared with what would await us if the British Government’s policy was carried. Labour’s policy of trying to use the crisis to force a general election is a complete distraction. I will not waste my time eviscerating their position, but two words come to mind: incoherence and cynicism. With the House of Commons effectively in control of Brexit policy, the Labour party must decide what it wants, a softer Brexit or a people’s vote. Those are the only two options facing us that are palatable to me and many others.
Should we aim for a people’s vote on the British Government’s policy, or the status quo? If the House of Commons cannot agree a way forward, the people must be asked once again to cast their verdict. The only other solution I can see is to support moves towards a formalised association status with the European Union by staying within the economic frameworks—namely, the single market and the customs union. For Wales, that would end the cynical power grab of our powers by the British Government, except in policy fields not within the EEA-EFTA agreement, such as agricultural measures.
The vision that I and my colleagues have for Wales has no time for the narrow-minded British nationalism at the heart of the Brexit project. Ultimately, as we emerge from the current wreckage, the people of my country need to start asking ourselves serious questions about where our best interests lie and what future we seek for our people—the splendid isolationism of British nationalism, or an outward-looking Wales playing its full part in the world. I know which future I choose.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), though I do not agree with all his ideas, and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who made a characteristically thoughtful speech.
Many ideas have been put forward today, but, as lawyers are fond of saying, we are where we are. I urge hon. Members putting forward ideas—650 different ideas, possibly, if you can fit everyone into this enormous debate, Mr Speaker—to look down the corridor, where there is another debate going on that is possibly even more thoughtful and perhaps a little less political than the one in this Chamber. I was made to stop and think when I read the speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury earlier today. I encourage all Members to have a little look at what is going on down the corridor.
In the 2016 referendum, the result in the Banbury constituency was the closest in the country. By 500, we voted to leave. I have seen no evidence, talking to people or in my postbag, that significant numbers on either side have changed their minds, though there have been a few. It is really important, given that we are where we are, that we now be sensible and practical. This is a fair deal—in fact, it is growing on me more and more as I read it and listen to debates such as this. There are two main reasons why I think that.
We have in the deal the beginnings of certainty on the status of EU nationals and an inkling of where our immigration policy is going. We know a fair bit about immigration in north Oxfordshire. Poles make up 10% of the population of Banbury. We also have another significant minority in the Kashmiris, who have been with us, in some cases, for four generations. The Poles and Romanians living locally are well integrated, and we value their contribution to or workforce and all aspects of public life.
I am concerned that we put flesh on the bones of the withdrawal agreement, and I look forward to engaging in detail with the White Paper so that my constituents might get practical solutions to problems such as, “Will granny be able to join me when she needs care in her old age?”. The deal is going in the right direction, which is one reason why I am inclined to vote for it, but I am also persuaded by the almost frictionless trade ideas set out in it. Of course, the future agreement needs more work, but we are going in the right direction.
In Banbury, we are lucky to have almost full employment. We have a wide selection of middle-sized family manufacturing firms—in the food and automotive industries, for example—that are a part of the critical just-in-time European-wide system. When I was hoping to speak in this debate, I thought I would ask my local business leaders what they would like me to say. I asked a wide selection, but I have chosen to read out the comments of two in particular. One is a great local entrepreneur. He was a Brexiteer, which is unusual among my local business leaders, and he now runs a company that is a leading distributor of health and beauty and household brands. He said:
“The deal on the table sorts several of the big Brexit issues—immigration being one. It also protects trade. Smooth trade through ports and ferry terminals is vital to the UK. So much of everything we eat and use comes from Europe. Likewise our exports are crucial to many UK businesses—especially automotive.
My view is we should sign it. I have not seen any credible alternative proposals from others...The Irish situation was always going to be difficult. It should not become a deal breaker. No deal would be a disaster.”
Let me also quote what was said by a representative of a company that manufactures high-end tools. This lady was a passionate remainer, and I am particularly fond of both her and her business—as, indeed, was my predecessor. The company is a great local employer. It is notable that those who visit its factory meet people who have worked there for 35 years, and successive generations of whose families have worked there. She said:
“The deal that is now on the table I believe is the best we could get. It isn’t as good as staying in for obvious reasons—you don’t get a better deal being out of the club than you get by being in it. But, it is a deal that an export company like ours can work with and while trade with the EU will cease to be frictionless we will have until 2021 to get things in place to deal with that. If I do my best to be positive about the situation, there may also be benefits for trade outside the EU post transition—although I sincerely hope not at the cost of lower standards for products, employee protection, the environment or animal welfare.”
I could not have put it better myself.
It could be said that Banbury was the most divided constituency on 23 June 2016, but I have seen plenty of evidence locally that we are prepared to come together, work together, and have a bright future with the deal that is on the table.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your forbearance and patience, because it has been a long afternoon.
Along with every other area in Scotland, my constituency voted to remain, yet Scotland has been repeatedly ignored. Because my time is limited, I will focus on three main points. I believe that this deal is bad for young people, bad for women and bad for the economy. The Scottish National party has repeatedly argued that it would be best for jobs, the economy and living standards to remain in the single market. We have refused to be dragged by those on the right into a self-defeating argument about immigration. Instead, at every opportunity, we have focused on the positives, such as free movement and the ability to live, work and travel across 27 countries, as well as the rich economic, cultural and societal benefits that migrants have brought to our country.
Since 2016, I have met many EU citizens and their families—French-born and German-born, teachers and nurses. People who have raised their families in Scotland and have spent the vast majority of their lives there are concerned about their ability to continue to live in the Scotland that they call home. That is just one instance where there is still a lack of certainty. There is also uncertainty for young people. It was my predecessor, Winnie Ewing—“Madame Écosse”—who championed the Erasmus programme. We should not deny future generations of young people the opportunity to learn, to travel and to broaden their horizons but, if anything, sadly, Brexit will only serve to do the opposite.
For all those reasons and more, the Scottish National party has repeatedly argued in favour of remaining in the EU, and, short of that, remaining in the single market and the customs union. Otherwise, free trade arrangements will introduce barriers to trade that will damage jobs, investment, productivity and earnings.
Women will be particularly affected, and the most disadvantaged and the most vulnerable will be hardest hit. When the Women’s Budget Group and the Fawcett Society examined the economic impact of Brexit, they found that there are serious implications for women, predominantly those who are workers, consumers and use public services. The cuts that this Government have placed on those services already have a disproportionate impact on women. A failure to prioritise gender equality has led to an increase in economic insecurity and inequality for these women.
This debate has served to do nothing except highlight how much Brexit has taken over the agenda. I should have been in Westminster Hall this afternoon condemning the Government on their record on gender inequality. Instead I am here debating this. That is of course where we are at and I would not choose to be anywhere else on this day but debating this important subject, but there are so many other important subjects that have been completely neglected.
In most scenarios, real wages for low-paid workers will reduce, prices will increase, and inevitably increase further, and levels of productivity will reduce as well. The UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty outlined that it was clear that the impact of Brexit was an afterthought. That is the point here. So I wish to focus on those who have already been forgotten in this debate: the vulnerable in my constituency, the one in four children who grow up in poverty, and that is only expected to increase. People will ultimately be worse off. We know that for a fact. Is that not sufficient reason in itself for the Government to reconsider their actions and to prioritise protecting the interests of those who need protecting most and are most at risk of the harsh impact of Brexit? Instead they are freezing their benefits and hitting them with five-week delays in universal credit. We are fully acknowledging by visiting food banks that there is an issue here and that we need to do more to support food banks. It is a scandal that these people are an afterthought—frankly, that is how this comes across. While we stand here discussing Brexit, people will go hungry at Christmas—people will go without food, children will go without gifts, and that is the least of many families’ problems.
My constituency is home to many multinational companies that rely on trade with Europe. In fact, Europe is eight times the size of the UK market, so our relationship with Europe could not be more important. DFDS, the largest employer in Larkhall that daily delivers to all major fish markets and distribution centres; Tunnock’s in Uddingston, which sells its famous teacakes and caramel wafers across Europe and beyond; and Borders Biscuits, based in Lanark with customers across the EU, all not only trade across Europe but are employers in my constituency. Their trade and the trade of many others rely on a good deal with Europe. In my opinion this withdrawal deal fails to deliver that. It offers no guarantees of frictionless access to the single market. It places Scotland at a serious competitive disadvantage to Northern Ireland—and, frankly, to the Union, which Members are so keen to keep. It is no certainty versus stability for the UK’s economy and relationship with the EU in the long term—[Interruption.] I thank hon. Members for chuntering from a sedentary position. Let us remember that in 2014 the people were told that the only way to remain in the EU was to remain part of the UK. Please tell me how that is working out for us. Tonight, too, there has been cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament from four of the five main parties rejecting this deal.
For all those reasons and more, I will be voting against the withdrawal agreement and supporting the amendments to protect businesses and jobs and, most importantly, the most vulnerable in my constituency. I cannot honestly in good conscience vote for a bad deal. The bottom line is: the Tories and everyone else across here protected the Union by telling people they could stay in the EU and then pulled the rug from under them the minute people voted to remain part of the UK. What kind of deal is that for Scotland? So of course Scotland is going to vote for independence.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
There has been much talk about the backstop and about the deal in general—so much talk that, if there is a single word that should be deleted from the English language at the earliest opportunity, it is “deal.” This is not about shopping around for a second-hand car or a better mobile phone tariff. It is about our relationship with our nearest neighbours. If there is one thing we probably could all agree on, it is that relationships between states in the modern world are complicated, very complicated. They cannot just be reduced to deal or no deal. Yet after two and a half years, that is how the argument is all too often presented.
Given that the political declaration is so vague and thin, let me try to characterise in stark terms where we have got to. Many have talked about cliff edges. To me it looks as though we have reached the edge and jumped. That is the withdrawal agreement bit. We will have a two-year transition period in which to sort out what happens before we hit the ground—it is quite a high cliff—and the political declaration is the rope by which we are dangling. But while we are dangling from that rope, the clock is ticking. We will hit the ground, and because that ground is the backstop from which we will have no exit, we will effectively have handed the scissors to the people at the top of the cliff. They might let us land gently, but they do not have to do so. Frankly, as negotiating positions go—with the clock ticking and with us heading towards somewhere we really do not want to be—this is really not a very good place.
There is also the simple fact of geography. We are part of Europe, just as Ireland is one island. Nothing can change either of those facts, so we will have a relationship. It is just a question of what kind it will be. And I have news for those who feel that they have had enough of all this Brexit stuff. Frankly, we are only just at the beginning of all these negotiations. The great irony is that the EU is actually the place where negotiations are done, so coming out will not end the need for reaching agreements with others or for following standards that much bigger trading partners will decide; it will just make it all harder.
That point has been well made by someone I would not normally find myself in agreement with: the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid). In February 2016, he wrote in The Mail on Sunday:
“When a deal is reached, it may require us to accept the same blizzard of regulations that’s imposed by Brussels not just on member states, but on countries like Norway and Switzerland that need access to European markets. And, like them, it’s possible we would have no say over what those regulations contained, while still potentially paying an access fee.”
I would not have used that exact language, but I rather agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who is now the Home Secretary. It is no surprise that this proposed agreement, despite the hard work of officials over many months, cannot deliver what was promised by the leave campaign. It is no surprise because what was promised was just not deliverable. The political declaration is, unsurprisingly, just a wish list that kicks decisions down the road for future discussion while leaving a vacuum of uncertainty.
Moving specifically to today’s debate topic of immigration and free movement, I can tell the House that this has been a cause of intense distress and uncertainty in Cambridge since the referendum, not just for the thousands of non-UK EU nationals who are anxious about the future but for their friends, neighbours and workmates, who never expected to see their friends suddenly facing such divisions. In recent months, I have worked with my neighbour, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), and the business group Cambridge Ahead on surveying businesses, universities and research institutes across our constituencies. Their responses have been consistent in stating that a third-country-style immigration process for EEA nationals would add more bureaucracy, time and cost to their recruitment. That recruitment is essential, due to skills shortages in the UK labour force and the global market in research specialisms. The tier 2 visa system and the £30,000 salary cap are already not working for non-EEA migration, and extending them to EEA movement would be a major own goal for our country.
Detailed evidence has been submitted to our inquiry from the University of Cambridge, and I will quote part of it:
“The postdoctoral research community serves as the engine room for much of the research that underpins Cambridge’s world-leading reputation, and provides a source of the ideas, innovation, business generation and disruptive technology that enables the UK to compete as a high-tech economy. Any barriers or disincentives to such recruitment, such as visa costs, could therefore have a significant impact on the University’s research and education operations”.
It went on to state:
“Extending the Tier 2 visa route to EEA nationals, as suggested in the MAC report, would significantly harm the UK’s competitiveness”.
I want to underline the fact that the university believes that that would significantly harm the UK’s competitiveness.
We are having this debate in the absence of any policy direction from a Government who cannot even agree a White Paper, but I hope that the view from Cambridge goes some way to exposing the risks that we would be taking if we continued with a backward-looking, numbers-only focus approach to immigration as the nature of our relationship with the European Union changes. We should of course be celebrating the benefits of movement between countries, not cowering in fear. We are at the global forefront of research, science and medicine, and we should not be risking throwing that away.
The agreement gives us no certainty about future mobility, for research or for any other sector or individual. This is not just about those who are traditionally termed the highly skilled; we also need the cooks, cleaners, bus drivers and builders, because our policy should be based on the needs of our economy, not on fear of being part of a rapidly changing world.
The deal fails on other fronts, too. The Prime Minister has gone from high aims—aiming to be part of the European Medicines Agency and of the European Research Council’s programmes—to what we now have: a hope of some form of co-operation. With such weak, limited ambition, the future for research and innovation—the shining star in the UK economy—looks much less bright.
In conclusion, there is a very good deal on offer—the one we currently have as members of the European Union. However, if we are to remain, it must be remain and reform. The EU has to respond to the unhappiness expressed in so many countries across Europe. Business as usual just will not cut it. That is the debate we really should be having. It is inescapable that we live in Europe. But what kind of Europe do we want it to be? I do not think that the Government are capable of facilitating that kind of discussion with the public. The only way out of the impasse we appear to be heading for is an election or a people’s vote.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in the debate. I was reflecting, as I think the country is, on how we arrived at this point. It seems that a catastrophic failure of leadership has brought us to within a few weeks of when we are supposed to leave the European Union without us having any clear plan for what that should look like. There is no clear consensus in Parliament, or indeed our country. When the history books are written, they will see the way that the Government have run things since the referendum as absolutely catastrophic. History will also write that, at this time, particularly yesterday, Parliament recognised the importance of reasserting its authority to try to ensure some sort of reason was brought to the chaos all around us.
How can a Government be held in contempt by the Parliament that they are supposed to control? That has never happened in our history. It is simply astonishing that that just seems to have been swept away. So I say with sorrow that we are in a situation now where as a Parliament we are looking to say what sort of future we want for our country and how we try to resolve this. Parliament is about trying to say that we need to re-establish and rebuild consensus. There will be a variety of views on how that is done but let us be clear: Parliament—virtually everyone who has spoken—has said that there is not a binary choice between what the Prime Minister has put before us and no deal. That is not the choice that faces all parts of the United Kingdom; it is a false choice. It does the Prime Minister—and, moreover, the country—no good at all to have that presented as the choice.
Parliament’s decision yesterday that we will not allow no deal should reassure the country, but it is unclear what happens after Tuesday if the deal, as we all expect, is voted down, as it should be. I for one will join my colleagues in happily marching through the Lobby to vote against the deal, in the belief that Parliament will ensure a better deal for all people of the United Kingdom as a result of our standing up and saying, “We will not be bullied by the Executive.”
So what does that actually mean? It may be that we have to extend article 50. It may be that we have to go back to the European Union. It may be that there will be a general election. It may even be that there will be a second referendum. All those things are unknown, but step by step and bit by bit, this Parliament will look at the facts and govern in the interests of the country. That is what is important, and that is why what happened yesterday was significant.
Let us also say in this debate that we can, as a Parliament, start to reassert some of the values that perhaps should have been spoken about more loudly during the referendum campaign. Let me start with immigration. I think immigration has been good for this country. I think it has benefited this country. That should be said loudly and clearly, time and again, because it is something that virtually every Member—sorry, I shall correct myself and say every Member—in this Parliament would agree with. Why do we not shout it out? Why do we not take on the bigots and the racists much more assertively? I say this about migration, not just immigration. There have been problems with migration, but migration overall has been good for this country as well. That is not to say that there are not problems with it, and of course those need to be dealt with, but as soon as we give ground on these things, into that space flows populism and all the anti-establishment rhetoric that we hear. That was a failure in the referendum campaign.
It does no good for the Government—the Executive—to pretend that this deal sorts anything out. If we do leave at the end of March 2019, what will be important is the fact that nothing is decided. My constituents and many constituents around the country thought—to be honest, until a few weeks ago I thought this as well—that, on leaving the European Union, large numbers of things would have been sorted out, such as trade and security. However, when I read the political declaration, not much has been decided, other than that we are going to leave—if that happens. What does the political declaration say about what happens after that? It says, “We will consider”, “Our aspiration is”, “We look to”, “We hope that”. My goodness me, Mr Speaker—is that what we are asking the British people to accept as a result of our withdrawal from the European Union?
I do not quite know where we will go, but I do know this: the fact that this Parliament has reasserted its authority means that we will be able to stand up, in whatever way we feel is correct, in the interests of the British people and that we will put them first, whatever part of the United Kingdom we represent.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is an honour and, indeed, a challenge to follow the excellent contribution of the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker).
It will surprise no one when I say that I, along with every one of my SNP colleagues, will vote against the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement when the House divides on Tuesday. I will vote against it because it is a very bad deal for Scotland, but also because it is a potentially catastrophic deal for the people of my constituency. What we in Argyll and Bute are being asked to do by the Prime Minister is to support a deal that by every analysis will make us poorer and that will put us at a competitive disadvantage to our near neighbours in Northern Ireland, just a few miles across the water from the Mull of Kintyre. It would be a dereliction of duty if I were to back the deal, because I would not be acting in the best interests of my constituents, my country or, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom if I were to support a deal that I believe would be harmful to the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of the people of Argyll and Bute.
For the past two years, the Prime Minister has told us repeatedly that no deal is better than a bad deal. We were assured that there were no circumstances in which she would sign up to a bad deal, yet what we are being asked to vote for next week is exactly that: a bad deal—a very bad deal. Any deal that puts Scotland at a competitive disadvantage can only be a bad deal. Any deal that prevents us from attracting people from right across Europe to Argyll and Bute to live, work, invest or raise a family in order to reverse a decades-long stream of depopulation is a very bad deal. I commend and 100% endorse the remarks made last night by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) when he said to the EU nationals who have chosen to make Scotland their home, “You are welcome.” We thank them for choosing to live in Scotland and welcome the contribution they make to our lives and our economy. Their presence enriches our culture.
That point was forcibly made to me last night by a constituent, Mr Graeme Lyon, who wants to know how the Prime Minister can justify causing such economic and social harm by ending the freedom of movement that has enriched everyone in this country. How could I possibly support an agreement that will have such disastrous consequences for our inshore fisheries fleet and our world-famous shellfish and fin-fish industries, that fails to protect our fragile west coast hill-farming sector, and that denies our vital tourism industry access to the continent-wide pool of labour it so desperately needs? I cannot and will not support the deal.
Of course, none of that should come as a surprise to the Prime Minister, because she came to Scotland last week to meet the people and to listen to their concerns—aye, right, so she did. Meeting and listening to the people of Scotland does not mean arriving at Glasgow airport at 3 o’clock and driving 12 minutes to a factory in Bridge of Weir, where a hand-picked group of journalists were waiting while the rest stood outside in the rain. It is not about firing out that old cliché about “our precious Union” before jumping back in the car for the 12-minute drive back to Glasgow airport to be in the back in the air and out the country by 6 o’clock that evening. That is nobody’s definition of meeting or listening to the people. In fact, it is an insult to the people of Scotland.
If the Prime Minister really wanted to hear the voice of Scotland, she should have a listen to the CNN report by Erin McLaughlin from Glasgow on the same day that the PM flew into Bridge of Weir. The report showed that the people of Scotland were insulted by the contempt shown by the Prime Minister and this sham of a PR stunt. It also showed that the people of Scotland do not want to be dragged out of the European Union against their will. Indeed, one young Glaswegian gentleman was so incensed that he, inadvertently perhaps, used a form of industrial language rarely heard on the streets of the “dear green place”.
The CNN report also showed that the people of Glasgow and of Scotland are moving from no to yes on the question of Scottish independence. This is not the future Scotland was promised back in 2014 when we were told that only by voting no in the independence referendum would we be able to retain our EU citizenship. No one was told when they voted no back in 2014 that not only would they be giving the green light to Scotland being dragged out of the European Union, but that Scotland would become poorer and that we would be put quite deliberately at a competitive disadvantage compared with other parts of the UK.
Another of the hollow promises made by those advocating a no vote in 2014 was that the Scottish Parliament would be the world’s most powerfully devolved Parliament. However, from that day to this, the Scottish Parliament has been ignored, sidelined and disregarded. Tonight, that Parliament rejected the Prime Minister’s withdrawal deal by 92 to 29. I wonder what cognisance this Government will take of the opinion of the world’s most powerfully devolved Parliament. I suspect we already know the answer to that, but I sincerely urge the Government to take on board what the Scottish Parliament has said, because it is absolutely right. An escape route is being offered, and I urge the Government to take it. Despite the Prime Minister’s bluster, this is not a take it or leave it situation.
This whole Brexit process has been an embarrassing fiasco. Over the past two years, we have heard about a hard Brexit, a soft Brexit, and a blind Brexit. Well, after yesterday we are now in the realms of a burst-ba’ Brexit. Regardless of how the fiasco is resolved, Scotland needs the full powers of an independent Parliament not just to stop and reverse this Brexit chaos, but to ensure that Scotland will never again be reduced to a passive bystander while things are done to it and for it by Governments and Prime Ministers whom the people of Scotland have overwhelmingly and consistently rejected.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara).
I rise as one of the Brexit generation of politicians elected to this place because of the causes and consequences of Brexit. I now find myself, as a Member of this House, faced with a divided Parliament and a divided country embroiled in a constitutional crisis not previously seen in our history, and I am being asked to use my vote on behalf of my constituents to make this great country of ours poorer and weaker in the world. Understandably, in that context, many people look to us with bemusement, questioning our ability as elected politicians to lead and to serve.
Regardless of whether one voted to leave or stay in the European Union, we do not have what we were promised. The Prime Minister’s proposals are worse than our current position, and they mean that Brexit will dominate the political agenda for many years to come. Leave voters were promised £350 million a week for the NHS. Instead, we have European doctors and nurses leaving us and Government risk assessments resulting in the stockpiling of medicines. Leave voters were promised that the UK could go it alone, with new trade deals around the world. Instead, we have heard the United States say it is not that interested, and we have the prospect of a transition period—which we may never get out of—that will make us unable to conclude trade deals until 2021 at the earliest.
Leave voters were promised that we would take back control of our laws. Instead, the Prime Minister’s proposals lock us into European regulations without the UK having a meaningful say. Unsurprisingly, this confirms that we have more power and more influence as a member of the European Union. We do not have what we were promised. Our current position is far better, and we will be locked into a debate on Brexit for the next decade.
Britain is a powerful nation. We are one of the largest and most sophisticated economies in the world, and we should be proud of our status and of the benefits it brings to the British people. In contrast, the Prime Minister’s proposals are a humiliation.
The majority of my constituents in Bristol North West voted to remain and, based on my extensive engagement with them, I know they continue to want to do so. Whether for advanced manufacturing jobs in aerospace and automotive industry across north Bristol, for NHS jobs at Southmead Hospital, for research jobs at our two universities or for warehousing and logistics jobs reliant on import and export in and around the port at Avonmouth, our current position as a member of the European Union is far stronger than any other option on the table.
I did not stand to be the Member of Parliament for my home constituency, where I was born and raised, only to come here to vote to make my constituents poorer. Whether I am an MP for a short time or for a long time, as a millennial and as the father of a daughter who turns one today, I will be left to deal with the mess left behind by this incompetent Government long after they leave the Treasury Bench.
In the face of the inevitable rejection of the Prime Minister’s proposals, I support the call for a people’s vote. All of us, regardless of whether we voted to stay or to leave, now know what leaving the EU means. I did not know when I voted to remain, and nor did people who voted to leave. New facts have emerged. It is not patronising to say to people that they have the right to change their mind now they know what leaving the EU means—a basis for the rules on which we leave and a wish list for the future. It is not undemocratic to provide more democracy by going back to the people. It is the right of the British people to have the final say on whether we leave on the Prime Minister’s proposed basis or stay in the European Union.
Securing a people’s vote is not the end, regardless of whether the outcome is to leave or stay. We now know loud and clear that the country is divided, driven apart by an increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots, between the cities and the towns, between the south and the north, between the old and the young and between the rich and the poor and struggling, characterised by differences in access to education, in the ability to rent or own a secure home, in the reliance on struggling public services and in the despair that comes from flatlining wages and a fear that our children are being raised in a country in decline.
Leaving the European Union will not fix these woes, and neither will remaining, unless we reform both the EU and Britain. As politicians, it is our job to step up to meet that cry for change and put forward a radical programme of reforms that shows we can be on the up once again. As politicians, we must not pander to the politics of the easy answer, as we have seen in this Brexit campaign. Instead we must be honest about the significant challenges facing our country in a fast-changing world. We must embrace the opportunity and the power of patriotism to drive our great nation forward, and discard the destructive desire of national populism to secure power for power’s sake.
This country of ours feels as though it is coming to the end of its current chapter. In a proudly sovereign Parliament, at the centre of a strong and successful United Kingdom, we have a choice to make about what comes next. We are a proudly sovereign Parliament, with our sovereignty derived from the British people, which gives us the right to go back to them to check and ask for further instruction. I truly hope that from the ashes of Brexit, whatever that will mean, we choose a future of hope and possibility, anchored in the reality of the world that we find ourselves in, and not another chapter of self-inflicted, populist decline.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate and it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones). Like other hon. Members here tonight, I am very concerned about the Government’s proposals, and the serious implications for our country and for the local community in my constituency. The negotiations have produced a deeply flawed draft agreement, and I am very concerned about how our relationship with other European countries could develop. I firmly believe the proposals are against the national interest, and could damage our economy and harm local communities across this country.
Other Members have made clear and telling points about the weakness of the UK’s position should these proposals be agreed. I want to associate myself with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and I commend the speeches made by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). I do not accept the Government’s assertion that we either have to accept the proposed deal or have no deal, and I am pressing for a much closer and more sensible relationship with the EU. The United Kingdom would simply be in a dreadful position if it were to sign up to the Government’s Brexit deal, yet, they are still seeking to foist this deal on our country. That cannot be right, which is why I will vote against the deal, and I urge other Members here tonight to do the same.
I turn now to the substance of today’s debate, as I want to speak about the serious impact of the Government’s proposals on my constituency, particularly with regard to immigration. Families are suffering real stress and hardship because of the Government’s policy. Thousands of local residents are from the EU and many families in our area include both British and EU citizens. Imagine the worry and the stress they have suffered during the past two years and let us consider what they are suffering now. The Government’s failed negotiation and lack of a plan for the future have led to families facing enormous uncertainty. Ministers have refused to accept Labour’s alternative, which would offer clarity and certainty to both EU residents in the UK and British citizens in Europe, who are sometimes forgotten.
Businesses and public services also need clarity and certainty, and they have been badly let down by the Government. My constituents in Reading and Woodley are at risk of being badly affected by a shortage of skilled workers caused by the failure of this Government’s policies. The risk to our NHS, in particular, is clear. GPs, our hospital and other services are already under severe pressure: they face increased demand from a growing and ageing population, insufficient funding and the additional problems of high housing costs, which make it harder for medical staff to afford to live in our area. Our local NHS is particularly vulnerable to a loss of staff from the EU, as a large number of EU citizens work in the local health service. EU staff make up just 5% of the total NHS workforce, but the proportion is much higher in my constituency: as many as 12.8% of employees at the Royal Berkshire Hospital are from the EU—two and a half times the proportion in the NHS as a whole.
The deal also risks inflicting serious damage on our local economy. As many may know, Reading is home to a number of IT and telecoms businesses. These international firms are major employers that create a significant benefit to our local economy and, indeed, to the wider area across the south of England and west London. Many have their Europe, middle east and Africa head offices in the Thames valley, and they are there partly because of the access to the EU and the wider pool of skilled staff. Many of these businesses hire skilled staff from the EU precisely because the two-tier visa system for non-EU staff is too expensive and complicated to navigate. There are real concerns that if they cannot bring teams together quickly because of immigration rules or cannot move staff immediately because of visa requirements, there is a serious risk that businesses could away from the UK.
Reading is also home to a number of tech start-ups. These small and medium-sized enterprises drive innovation and add immense value to the local and national economy. Many such small companies are run or were started by EU nationals, as well as by UK nationals. They may well have come to our area precisely because of that international outlook. They contribute their knowledge, entrepreneurship and hard work, and they are deeply concerned about the uncertainty over Brexit, which exposes their businesses to significant and unnecessary risk. Yet despite all the evidence from my area and throughout the country, the Government have quite simply failed to set out sensible plans for immigration.
The Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee that the White Paper on immigration would be published in December. We heard Members asking earlier which December that would be. He now says that it will be published “soon” and that it is “unlikely” that Members will see it before the meaningful vote next week. On top of that, the political declaration includes less than a page on the future immigration policy. It commits the Government to ending free movement but fails to include a plan for what will replace it. The Government have quite simply failed to deliver on their promises on immigration. They have failed on immigration, just as they have failed to deliver a Brexit deal that protects jobs, workplace rights and frictionless trade for UK businesses. This simply is not acceptable. Members from all parties have a right to know what the new immigration system will look like before we cast our votes next week.
I have never accepted that it is a choice between the Prime Minister’s failed deal and no deal. No Government have the right to plunge the country into chaos as a result of their own failure.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), who spoke so eloquently about the fears and worries of his constituents. Many of my constituents have told me of the same challenges and fears that they will face if Brexit goes ahead.
I campaigned to remain in the EU and my constituency voted to remain. I voted against triggering article 50, because I felt that there was so much work to be done to establish exactly what Brexit would mean to this country, knowing that the promises given to leave voters were untruths and, as we well know, are undeliverable. There was no mention by leave campaigners of the conflict between Brexit and retaining the Good Friday agreement, and there was nothing about the impact of leaving the EU on our rights at work or on environmental and consumer standards. Nor was there anything about the impact of losing the significant benefits from the UK’s full membership of and influence in bodies such as the European Medicines Agency, the European Aviation Safety Agency and so many more.
Twenty-eight months later, we have got no further than documents containing broad principles with massive gaps. It is not a deal, just a framework. I will not vote for such a pile of vagueness, and I certainly will not vote for no deal, either.
The lack of the long-awaited immigration white paper is just one of many legislative gaps among the issues on which we are expected to vote next Tuesday. EU migrants are integral members of our society and are vital to our economy. For those here now and for those who may wish to come to the UK in future, the Prime Minister’s deal offers nothing concrete on which they can plan their future lives. Thousands of my constituents are citizens of other EU countries. They work as carers and construction workers; they work for the NHS, and for the massive hospitality sector and many other bodies across both the public and the private sectors.
This morning, I met my constituent, Anette, a German national, who has been here for 30 years. She is not only married to a UK national, but a mother of UK nationals. She is apoplectic about being accused of jumping the queue, especially given what she has contributed to the UK not only in taxes, as a higher rate taxpayer, but as someone who has spent her professional working life in teams of highly skilled nationals of many EU countries, improving services, providing millions of pounds of benefits and international prestige to our public and private sectors.
What about those whose future plans are based on freedom of movement? There are many reasons why young people voted so strongly for remain, and they include the freedom to work, study, live and love anywhere in Europe. For young people, whether or not they choose to travel, remaining in the EU is the key to prosperity in their future. Given the rising costs and lower wages that my children’s generation already face, I am not prepared to commit their future to the recession that the Government’s own analysis clearly predicts. Furthermore, if another referendum were held now, another 1.8 million young people—and that is the figure as of today—have now reached voting age and they want a say in their future. I have no doubt that they will follow the voting preference of the 18-year-olds in June 2016.
On the economy and jobs, there is not a business or a sector that will not be worse off if the UK leaves the EU, and at least the Government now have the grace to accept that. Many of my constituents work in the broadcasting and audio-visual sector across west London. The UK is Europe’s leading international broadcasting hub, home to more cross-border channels than any other EU country. West London has grown as a hub for international broadcasting, taking advantage not only of the skills base, but of the unique range of languages spoken in London, which has come about partly through the EU’s freedom of movement.
The EU is setting up a digital single market because of the importance of frictionless movement, trade and similar regulations, but the country of origin rule means that, to broadcast into EU countries, a broadcaster needs to be based in an EU country. Brexit means that the growth in the sector will be killed stone dead and that the UK’s competitive edge will be lost. Companies such as Discovery, which is based in my constituency, have already announced plans to leave the UK. They cannot wait for the uncertainty of the next two years, and, like other companies, are gradually moving investment, and staff. There is nothing in either the withdrawal agreement or the political declaration to give any comfort to this major and growing sector and, as other Members have said in this Chamber yesterday and today and will continue to say over the next few days, the same is true for many other sectors, which are important to all our constituents.
What was promised in 2016 by the leave campaign cannot be delivered, and even Cabinet Ministers now admit that. This deal is much, much worse than the deal that we already have, which is in the EU as a full voting and influential member of all the many European arrangements and organisations that make for stability, and with the benefit of being a full player in the largest economic bloc in the world. With no majority in this House for the Prime Minister’s deal, or for no deal, the only option is to put the vote back to the people with all the implications of each option clearly set out.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Although I have spoken in more than 100 debates since I entered this House, none has been as important as this one, which will guide the future of this country for generations to come.
Many hon. Members have covered the security implications, but it is worth reflecting on the fact that the agreement makes no mention of Europol and says that the UK would be locked out of EU tools, including the Schengen Information System, European Arrest Warrant and the European Criminal Records Information System when the transition period ends.
The Police Federation, which represents 120,000 rank-and-file officers, said it has “no idea what the policing landscape will look like post 29 March 2019.”
This in and of itself is enough to reject the agreement as presented to us.
The Prime Minister’s deal merely pushes back decisions into the transition and does not even answer what sort of Brexit we will get, and the security arrangements are merely the tip of a Titanic iceberg.
After the Prime Minister gave her statement to the House on 22 November, she said that the post-transition options for the future relationship with the EU were a spectrum. I asked the Prime Minister what her spectrum was and her response was,
“there is a balance between checks and controls and the acceptance of rules and regulations.”
Are any of us any clear on the Prime Minister’s spectrum? No, I can see that we are not.
I believe we have five basic options: a no-deal Brexit; the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement; a renegotiation of the withdrawal deal; membership of the European Free Trade Association and the customs union, or the so-called Norway-plus arrangement; and remaining in the EU.
Everyone understands no deal, in that we leave over 70 international trade deals and the all-Ireland electricity market ceases, with the potential to completely disrupt Northern Ireland’s power supply. The chaos around customs checks puts all goods coming into the country at risk, including food, medicines, fuel and machine parts. The Government’s technical notices make for grim reading, but after passing the amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—my former MP, in fact—last night, we are on the road to asserting the will of the House and avoiding a no-deal Brexit.
The Prime Minister’s deal means no immediate cliff edge. Instead, we would leave the EU and move into a transition period of at least 21 months where we would stay within and would need to update all EU rights and regulations. But what then? Well, the Prime Minister’s non-answer tells us all we need to know. The Government would negotiate a free trade deal that is
“a balance between checks and controls and the acceptance of rules and regulations.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 1131.]
Considering this is all the Government have managed in the last 20 months, I cannot write them a blank cheque. It might not even be a cheque made out to the current Prime Minister, so I cannot and will not support the EU withdrawal agreement when it comes before Parliament next Tuesday.
I have consistently said that I cannot support any option that does not protect jobs by preserving tariff-free, barrier-free, frictionless trade with the rest of Europe. Any option should retain current employment and consumer rights and environmental standards, and at least keep pace with Europe in the future. There should also be no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and Spain, and our sovereign territory on Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus. Let us remember that the single market accounts for 25% of global GDP and represents Britain’s biggest trading partner. I believe that only the latter three options I outlined earlier can achieve this.
Yesterday we saw the Government lose three votes including, historically, on the contempt motion. The confidence is visibly draining from the Government, whose majority has always been built on a billion promises. If the Prime Minister cannot pass this “take it or leave it” deal, this House will call time on her. There is an opportunity for another Government to negotiate a deal built on adopting higher regulatory, environmental and labour standards. If we have higher standards and regulatory alignment, our deal will look totally different from the second-rate agreement that we have been asked to vote on.
For us to enjoy the same access rights and benefits of the European single market without having to negotiate a whole new treaty, we could apply for membership of the European Free Trade Association and be part of the European economic area. This could be completed in a fairly short space of time. However, there is no customs union for EFTA members. If we wanted seamless trade and no tariffs for goods originating outside the UK but being sold into the EU, we would need a new customs union. Given that it is not possible to be both in EFTA and the customs union, we would secure a derogation from the EFTA convention in order to facilitate the new EU-UK customs union. This honours the question in the referendum, which simply said:
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
Well, we will not be a member of the European Union if we are a member of EFTA.
Finally, we could simply remain in the EU. Consider all that we have learnt since 24 June 2016. We have learnt that negotiating a deal that is better than the one we have now is effectively impossible; that the queue of countries in Whitehall to ask for trade deals has been oddly missing; and that Vote Leave broke electoral law, overspending by hundreds of thousands of pounds, with Cambridge Analytica employees admitting they used illegal data harvesting techniques. Considering all that, should not people be given the chance to think again?
If there was another vote on whether to stay or leave, I would vote to remain, just as I did in 2016, because there is no better deal for the United Kingdom. I will vote to reject this agreement. If there is an opportunity to vote to renegotiate, join EFTA or have another vote on EU membership in the parliamentary procedures that we are going to undertake after we inevitably vote down the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement, I will vote for any and all of these. I will not vote for the Prime Minister’s blank cheque withdrawal agreement, and I will oppose a no-deal Brexit with every fibre of my being.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
During the referendum, I was a reluctant remainer. I appreciated that our relationship with the EU was not perfect. I acknowledged that many of us would like to see changes. Like so many people, I felt that the EU was often a remote and arrogant bureaucracy.
But there is no doubt in my mind that the deal brought back by the Prime Minister is not what was promised to those who voted to leave. It means not taking back sovereignty but giving more of it away, desperately accepting rules that we have no control over in order to cling on to access to our largest trading partner for goods, and to keep our countries together, while completely ignoring services, which make up 80% of our capital’s economy. Why should someone in Liverpool, Newcastle or Sunderland care about London’s economy? Because right now, London and the south-east are the only regions that generate more taxes than they spend, so if London gets hit, so do the hospitals, schools and services of our other great cities. Perhaps it should not be that way, but it is.
The idea that we can make ourselves smaller as globalisation becomes faster and stronger, while comforting, is unlikely to be successful. As a block of 28 nation states standing together against the likes of Google, Facebook and Amazon, we are a far more effective bulwark against the worst excesses of these amazing global companies who can have extraordinarily negative impacts on some of the most vulnerable towns and people. I have been amazed by the politicians and commentators who blithely suggest that our economy taking a hit would be a price worth paying. We all know that the people who get hit first are always the poorest. I do not believe that anybody voted to make us poorer, I do not believe that anybody voted for us to debate for two and a half years and choose a worse deal than the one that we currently have, and I certainly do not believe that anybody voted to see our country opt for a monumental act of self-harm.
We have thousands of people sleeping rough on our streets—the number is higher now than at any point under this Government. We have over 130,000 children who will wake up trapped in unsuitable temporary accommodation on Christmas morning. At my local A&E, we already have patients queuing out of the door, indicating that last year’s winter crisis will be but a preface to the problems that lie ahead this year. Yet, meanwhile, here we are still debating the level of uncertainty and destruction that we should plunge our economy and our country into. Take the plans to reopen the Wilson Hospital in my constituency, halted after the funders pulled out due to Brexit’s economic uncertainty. Why would we choose to give ourselves self-inflicted wounds costing billions of pounds when we still have the chance to say no?
So what is the alternative? Looking back to 2016,1 know so much more about the impact of leaving the European Union than I did then. I suspect that is true for all of us. We gave the responsibility for deciding on whether we should leave the EU to the people of this country, and now we know the terms of the deal on the table, those same people deserve to have their say. Now that the practical consequences of Brexit are there for all to see, almost two thirds of my constituents support a vote on the deal. The costs and complexities are clearer now than at any stage during the referendum, and it is evident that there is no majority in Parliament for this deal, because the one thing that unites both sides of the debate is that nobody voted for the deal that is on the table. Parliament is in gridlock, but there is a clear solution: let the people decide.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I like to think, Mr Speaker, that you have been employing the Emery effect tonight by keeping me on the bench so that I can come on and make a late impact. Thank you for that.
It is not often that I see one of the Scots Tories speaking and think of an American President, but I did tonight, as I was reminded during the rather tortured contribution by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who is no longer in his place, of the quote by George Bush, who said:
“I have my opinions, strong opinions, but I don’t always agree with them.”
I think I am justified in saying that it would be right to be greatly concerned by the deal that is on offer. It is a democratic outrage that Scotland is being dragged out of the EU against the people’s vote in Scotland, where 62% of people, in all 32 local authority areas, voted to remain. As we have heard, all the parties in the Scottish Parliament, with the exception of the Tories, voted 92 to 29 tonight to reject the deal on offer.
I am greatly concerned by what my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) described as “economic illiteracy”. He pointed out that this is already costing £600 per person per year. Scottish Government analysis shows that the deal will make Scotland £9 billion worse off by 2030. That is £1,600 per person per year. Even the Chancellor has admitted that that will make our economy smaller.
I am right to be concerned by those things, but the thing that worries me most is what we are becoming and, as we have heard from many Members tonight, the message that is sent out about what we feel about people in other countries. I have had the great honour of performing an unpaid role as honorary consul to Romania since 2011, both unofficially and officially. The Romanians who come to work in the highlands and islands are fantastic people. They have all made a genuine contribution to our communities and have slotted in as friends and neighbours and are part of the fabric of our communities. I can say the same for the Poles, the French, the Germans, and all the EU nationals who have contributed to the highland economy.
Brexit does not only have consequences for business, the economy and communities. It affects each of us as individuals and our very identities. The Scottish Government’s national outcomes state:
“Scotland’s national and cultural identity is defined by our sense of place, sense of history and sense of self. It is defined by what it means to be Scottish; to live in a modern Scotland; to have an affinity to Scotland; and to be able to participate in Scottish society. A flourishing economy and society depend on ambition and self-confidence in Scotland and on Scotland’s effective integration into the European and global economy. Our international reputation will influence the extent to which people see Scotland as a great place in which to live, learn, visit, work, do business and invest. A good quality of life and a strong, fair and inclusive national identity are important if Scotland is to prosper and if we are to achieve sustainable economic growth.”
That is the kind of Scotland I want to live in.
Our European identity and shared EU values are at the heart of this. Despite the overwhelming vote to remain in Scotland, European Scots face not only the economic and social impacts of Brexit, but they face losing their European identity. There was a nice piece in the Sunday Herald in 2016 that said:
“Scotland has been an outward looking European nation since the late middle ages. From the 16th century, Scots merchants, academics and soldiers spread far and wide in the continent establishing communities in countries like Poland, Sweden and the Low Countries.”
Our bond and connection with European nations is deep, strong and long-lasting.
In the highlands, we have long had a problem with emigration, not immigration. Our deepened relationship with the EU has presented an opportunity for us to welcome EU nationals to our region, a great many of whom have settled in the area and contributed to our economy. The UK Government’s obsession with unrealistic and counterproductive one-size-fits-all net migration targets overlooks the incredible value of migrant people to our isles and the different economic needs of the highlands and islands, as well as those of Scotland as a whole. Over the next 10 years, 90% of Scotland’s population growth is projected to come from migration, which is especially vital for the highlands.
I do not have as much time as I would like to explain in depth the importance of EU nationals to the highland economy and of our people who go across to other EU nations to live, work and contribute. It is, quite simply, the fabric of what we do, and this deal or any no-deal scenario that might be proffered by the Prime Minister will do nothing—absolutely nothing—for the people of Scotland, wherever they have come from. I will be absolutely proud to be with my colleagues in voting down such a deal when it comes before this House. I will say, finally, that the actions of this UK Government in, once again, ignoring Scotland, ignoring its people and ignoring its Parliament only make the case for the independence of Scotland much stronger.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
One of the saddest things to have come out of the Brexit referendum vote on 23 June 2016 has been the rise in racism, and the fear and uncertainty felt by EU citizens living in the UK and also by those from non-EU countries living here. I have heard from my constituents in Enfield, Southgate who are EU nationals, married to UK citizens, working in UK institutions, paying taxes in the UK and making a positive contribution to our society that they are now seriously worried about their future, fearing that their family will be torn apart by the confusion caused by the Government’s position on EU citizens living and working in the UK.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is also having a huge impact on children? I recently met such children at a primary school, and their parents are unsure about their future, let alone about where their children will be going to school.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is something I have noticed from speaking to children—I am a governor of two schools—and that factor has also been raised with me.
Although the Government’s proposed settlement scheme may help some of my EU constituents living in Enfield, Southgate, the withdrawal agreement does not guarantee that the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and of UK citizens living in EU countries will be protected. If my previous and current experience of the Home Office is anything to go by, I have no confidence that the Home Office will be able to cope with the 5 million or so settled status applications that it will have to process. The Home Office is struggling even to cope with some of the Windrush claims, so how it will cope with settled status applications is anyone’s guess.
It is a shame that the Government have not produced their immigration White Paper yet. We are being asked to approve this deal blindly, when immigration was one of the reasons why people voted to leave. The truth is that for years the Government have been trying to show that they are tough on immigration. However, rather than have an honest debate about it, they have decided, just to look good, to kowtow to every knee-jerk reaction to every negative news story about immigration.
The latest net migration statistics, out last week, show that the number of EU migrants coming to the UK was 74,000, whereas the number of non-EU migrants was 248,000. It seems that the Government have been unable to control migration since they promised to do so when they came into power in 2010.
We need a sensible debate about migration to this country. This country needs migrants. On 1 January 2018, the UK was ranked 153rd in the world for percentage population growth, with a rate of just 0.52%. Considering that we are all living longer and that population growth in the UK is stagnating, we need migrants to keep the NHS running, work in our care industry, work in the hospitality sector, collect the crops and package the produce from our farms.
We live in a global world where collaboration is part of everyday working life. In May, I visited the Institute of Cancer Research, where I met scientists, researchers and doctors from all over the world who are all working together to help develop a cure for different types of cancer, trying to discover the relationship between lifestyle choices and causes, and looking at genetic cell mutations and how they can be prevented. All this collaboration is done for our benefit, and the idea that barriers would be put up to restrict this good work is just madness.
Collaboration on a global level takes place in virtually every sector, whether it is finance, advertising, creative industries, the nuclear sector or even the creative industries. Many orchestras, artists and performers work with international colleagues, and they need to be able to do so if they are to ensure that we have the very best cultural enrichment and that it is shared across the world.
My parents were immigrants. They came to the UK from Cyprus in the 1960s. They worked hard and made a positive contribution. A significant number of hon. Members who have a claim to immigrant heritage have similar stories to tell. We should celebrate the contribution of immigrants to UK life. It makes us all the richer, as I have outlined above.
I have heard stories of non-UK workers being picked up in vans on street corners to go to work on building sites and being paid a fraction of the minimum wage, thus undercutting what UK workers would be paid. Let us go after those using such sharp employment practices, and make sure that no one can be paid less than the minimum wage, and that people’s employment rights and health and safety at work are protected.
The Prime Minister described the withdrawal agreement as taking back control of our borders. Well, the current immigration figures show that nothing of the sort is happening right now. The Prime Minister also said that the UK’s immigration policy will be based on the skills and talents that someone has to offer. That fails to take account of the EU workers who provide seasonal unskilled labour in the agriculture and hospitality sectors, to name but two. Worse, we have yet to see the draft immigration White Paper. The withdrawal agreement makes us worse off. It is not good for jobs and the economy. I will vote to reject the deal on Tuesday.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
This has been an excellent debate covering a range of vital and urgent issues. I am not going to repeat the many compelling points made by the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in her speech. I cannot do adequate justice to all the other 48 contributions that have been made, some of which I missed. I am told, however, that there was a typically brilliant speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David).
In the time I have available, let me highlight those contributions which I believe best sum up why the Prime Minister’s proposed Brexit deal would leave us less secure as a country and would not deliver the fair rules for migration that we need—two out of Labour’s six tests failed in one debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, said, we are being asked to make this decision without even seeing the immigration White Paper we were promised. We therefore have no detailed idea of what the new migration rules will say or how they will work in practice. She also said that we are being asked to support a political agreement that is entirely silent on our future access to the SIS II database and will leave our police and security services less well able to protect the public than they are at present. As the former universities Minister, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), pointed out, if we are being cut out of the Galileo database even while the agreement is being discussed, what hope do we have of negotiating access to other vital databases once the agreement has been signed?
We also heard an important contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), who talked about his German lessons at school and the lessons from history that show that our place in the world is not strengthened but diminished when we cut ourselves off from Europe—a point also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). From the Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), we heard about the grave consequences of the dangers of this deal, and even worse of no deal, for the national health service, both for medical supplies and for medical staff. That is something that the Foreign Secretary should understand better than anyone, because that is what he used to say when campaigning for remain.
We were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) not just that EU co-operation and networks help to keep our country safe from crime and terrorism, but that the Prime Minister personally fought to keep our part in them when she was Home Secretary. Now, however, she cannot guarantee that they will continue. My hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff North and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) both rightly said—I agree with them—that far from helping to maintain Europe’s leadership on climate change, which is the single biggest threat to the world’s long-term security, this political agreement cannot even guarantee that we will continue to agree a common position in future international negotiations. Indeed, let us note that it used to be one of the warnings against a no-deal Brexit that Britain could lose access to the EU emissions trading scheme. However, even this supposed deal does not guarantee that continued access, and says only that the parties should “consider” co-operation—just one of many foreign policy sections of the document where clear, existing agreements on co-operation have been replaced by vague, loose aspirations.
What this debate and all the many contributions have laid bare is that on the first duty of every Government—the duty to protect the safety and security of their citizens—the Prime Minister’s deal fails. I hope that when the Foreign Secretary speaks in a moment, he will address the points that I have mentioned: access to vital security databases—
Emily Thornberry
No, I have been asked not to take interventions at this stage of the evening.
Emily Thornberry
We have had an opportunity over the last eight hours for everyone to have—[Interruption.] Mr Duncan, please calm down. I have been asked not to take interventions at this stage and I am not going to—
Emily Thornberry
When the right hon. Gentleman has had a chance to calm down, perhaps I can continue. What this debate and all the many contributions have laid bare is that on the first duty of every Government—the duty to protect the safety and security of their citizens—the Prime Minister’s deal fails. I hope that when the Foreign Secretary speaks in a moment, he will address those points that I have mentioned: access to vital security databases; our future international co-operation with the EU; our ability to tackle terrorism and organised crime; our place in the world; our shared fight against climate change; and even the future of our NHS.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer one other very specific question that goes to the heart of his responsibilities as Foreign Secretary. He was proud to announce yesterday the new embassy that his Department is opening in the Maldives, one of 12 new posts due to be opened by the Government over the next two years. However, even after those new openings, there will still be 16 other countries around the world where Britain has no direct consular representation but where other EU countries do. These countries have a combined population of 72 million people, spread across Asia, Latin America and Africa, including 10 past and present members of the UN Security Council. These are countries where up until this point, thanks to the common foreign and security policy, any British citizen visiting, working or living there who found themselves in difficulty and could not look to a British embassy for help had the right to go to other EU embassies based there and ask for consular support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) asked the Government last week what provision was being made in the Prime Minister’s proposed deal to continue those arrangements after we leave the EU. The answer was none. In fact, it is worse than that—the answer was that British citizens who are arrested in those countries or who are affected by a hurricane or an earthquake could no longer ask the French or Spanish embassies to help, but they could “phone the Foreign Office switchboard.” If we needed any more evidence of how half-baked, hurried through and totally botched the Prime Minister’s deal is and how reliant it is on vague future aspirations of co-operation, it is the fact that the Government have not even bothered to think about what it means for British citizens being left without consular support in dangerous situations. It is the very definition of making the British people, whom it is our first duty to protect, less safe and less secure.
That is not the only loss of security that I hope the Foreign Secretary will address in his closing speech. If the first duty of the Government is to protect the physical security of their citizens, their second duty is surely to protect the economic security of the nation, which was a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). What we have learned with this Foreign Secretary is that he is very willing, quite often, to say one thing about the economic impact of Brexit behind the closed doors of Downing Street and another when he is in the television studios or standing at the Dispatch Box. When he is trying to sell this deal to Parliament tonight, I hope that he will clear up some of the disparities between what he says publicly and what he says privately.
I have three questions for him to that end. In the television studios, he says that this is the best deal for Britain and we can look forward to a glorious era, where
“we become an independent sovereign power, negotiating our own trade deals”
around the world. Around the Cabinet table, presumably informed by the Attorney General’s advice, he says the opposite—that this deal will leave us in what he calls a “Turkey trap”, stuck in an exclusive trading agreement with the EU, but unable to influence any of its decisions and unable to negotiate our own deals. Will he tell us tonight what he really thinks? ?
Secondly, in the television studios, when asked to talk about the backstop, the Foreign Secretary says it simply will not happen. He says:
“Britain will be an independent nation…it is in black and white. That is the intention of the EU”.
But round the Cabinet table, he says the opposite. The backstop will become a “frontstop”, he says. “As soon as the deal is signed,” he says, “the EU will have what they want”. “They will block any progress,” he says, “on the final new trading agreement, and will turn the backstop into the only available outcome.” Will he tell us tonight what he really thinks?
Thirdly and finally, in the television studios, the Foreign Secretary says:
“We will not be significantly worse off”
as a result of the Prime Minister’s deal, but did he not used to say the exact opposite around the Cabinet table, especially about the impact on the NHS, when he warned of the need to avoid a hard Brexit?
I hate to say it, but I have to agree with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s remarks over lunch on Monday. She said that the Foreign Secretary was “so charming” but that there was “no consistency”, and she was absolutely right. Even more damning, however, was her explanation for the inconsistency. Excuse me, Mr Speaker, for using the Foreign Secretary’s name, but I am quoting his Cabinet colleague. “Hunt”, she says, “is all about the game-playing”. Doesn’t that sum it all up?
We have a Tory Cabinet obsessed with their own internal power games and fighting like ferrets in a sack to succeed their lame duck leader, with a Foreign Secretary who, according to his own Cabinet colleague and the evidence of this debate, has been more interested in playing leadership games than in making sure that this political agreement can maintain our future foreign policy co-operation with the EU and protect the security of British citizens, whether at home or abroad. That is the kind of Front Bench we see before us today. In the light of their complete failure of leadership and their total—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. No, it’s not boring to me. Sir Alan, you are normally a figure of dignity in one way or another. You are a little over-excitable. Calm yourself. You really need to get a grip. You are not only a knight, but a KCMG and a figure of enormous celebrity in the life of the nation. I know that you do not underestimate all that, so a tad of dignity would be greatly appreciated.
Emily Thornberry
That is the kind of Front Bench we see before us, and in the light of their complete failure of leadership and their total failure to deliver a new set of fair rules on immigration and to protect our country’s security, it is absolutely no wonder that this House is only a week away from rejecting their dismal Brexit deal and already holds this dismal Government in total and utter contempt.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I have seen off four shadow Health Secretaries and several shadow Culture Secretaries in my time, but I have to say that tonight, when I was called charming by the shadow Foreign Secretary, I nearly blushed. I thank her for the compliment, and I will assume that she could not possibly have meant the other less gracious things she said about me. I thank her for this one happy moment in my Dispatch Box career.
We have had a good debate today on the implications of the Brexit deal. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. Unfortunately, I did not hear the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), but I heard that he made a particularly thoughtful speech about the dilemmas in everyone’s mind and the conflicts of loyalty—to party, to Government, to country and, particularly, to voters who voted to leave the EU. We should not pretend that this is an easy decision for anyone.
I commend hon. Members in all parts of the House who emphasised the obligation that collectively rests upon all of us to fulfil the mandate of the referendum and take Britain out of the EU. I cannot mention every Member who spoke this afternoon, but I do want to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), for Carlisle (John Stevenson), for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), all of whom spoke with passion about how those who voted to leave the EU deserved respect for their views rather than indignation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley spoke with particular passion about leave voters who felt that no one was listening to them. He said that if Parliament decided not to listen to them, that would be wholly dangerous.
Those sentiments were expressed not just by Conservative Members but by the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), who reminded us that their constituents voted by clear margins to leave the EU. There was common ground even with the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—I do not always say that—who said that we must honour and respect the referendum result. Let me emphasise that the fundamental aim of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration is to make good on the verdict of the referendum. That is why they have been painstakingly negotiated for the last two years.
We heard some passionate arguments for a second referendum from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), among others. I sat in the Cabinet with my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney, and I always listened carefully to her many excellent contributions. In my last role, I learned also to listen carefully to the excellent contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes.
However, on this rare occasion, I found myself agreeing more with comments such as those of the hon. Member for Blyth Valley, who said that if we held a second referendum, his constituents would ask why we did not then hold a third and a fourth. They would do that for a simple reason. If we did hold another referendum and the result were reversed—if 48% of the country voted to leave and 52% voted to remain—there would be 48% who had voted twice in a row to leave the EU, and they would be incredibly angry. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) was right to say that a second referendum would not settle the issue.
Anna McMorrin
What the Secretary of State is saying is not correct. It is not a question of rerunning the referendum that took place two years ago; it is a question of giving the decision back to the people, two years on, so that they can ask themselves, “Is this what we really want, now that the evidence is clear?”
Mr Hunt
I suggest to the hon. Lady that she should have conversations with the leave voters in her constituency, and ask them whether they agree with that view. I think that leave voters have a very simple message: they just want us to get on with it. We must ask ourselves whether it would truly settle the issue in their minds were we to go back and ask people the same question again, or a similar question.
Wera Hobhouse
Is the Secretary of State not neglecting the people who voted to remain in the European Union and who are not being listened to now? They are angry too.
Mr Hunt
I think it is a world first for me to praise the Liberal Democrats from the Dispatch Box, but they, at least, have been completely consistent from the start in saying that they want to reverse the result of the referendum. I am afraid that other Members have been hiding behind various devices, and saying that they do not want to reverse the result when they actually do. I think that, leave or remain, this is a moment when we have to remember that we are above all a democracy in this country, and it would be incredibly dangerous if we were not to listen to what people have asked us to do.
Sir Michael Fallon
My right hon. Friend has already said that.
Is the point not that, either way, the question is unlikely to be resolved decisively in any referendum that might command, say, 60% or 65% of the electorate, which the 1975 referendum, which I think my right hon. Friend is too young to remember, actually did?
Mr Hunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for his flattering comment about my age. I agree with him. It would not resolve the issue, but I think there is a danger that if the result were reversed, it would make the very same people who said that the political class—the political elite—was not listening to them even more convinced that that was the case.
The shadow Foreign Secretary talked about foreign affairs and security, and I want to touch on that briefly. My starting point is very simple: however profound, significant and important Brexit might be, it does not change the simple fact that no European country has done more for the defence and security of Europe than Britain, and that partnership long predates our membership of the EU. In 1940 this country rejected any thought of abandoning Europe, even at the risk of invasion and national ruin, and joined forces with the United States and other allies to launch the liberation of the continent in 1944. Then Britain and the US, with our European friends, strove to build a new world order based on rules and institutions rather than power and militarism, and every British Government regardless of party has acted in the spirit of that tradition—a Labour Government setting up NATO, Margaret Thatcher standing shoulder to shoulder with Ronald Reagan against the Soviet threat. The EU, too, through its establishment of a rules-based order in continental Europe and the generous and far-sighted opening up to post-Soviet accession countries, has played a central role.
I particularly commend the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) for reminding us of the historical perspective, which is, in short, a partnership of shared values stretching across political and national divides, from left to right, across the Atlantic, including EU and non-EU members, which has kept the UK and Europe safe. The political declaration aims to enhance that partnership, and the task of putting that into practice will begin on the day the deal is agreed.
As European countries commit to that partnership going forward, so my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has shown by word and deed that Britain’s commitment to the security and defence of Europe remains unconditional and immoveable. Indeed, right now, in the middle of the Brexit debate, the British Army comprises the single biggest element of NATO’s enhanced forward presence, safeguarding Poland and the Baltic states. That is why the declaration allows the closest relationship in foreign and security policy that the EU has ever had with a third country. Part III makes it clear that “where and when” our interests converge, Britain and the EU will be able to “combine efforts” to the
“greatest effect, including in times of crisis”.
Here I can reassure the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), who worried about our country becoming isolated, that that is not going to happen. Where we agree with the EU, we can act together; where we disagree, we will be free to act independently or with others. But we will no longer be constrained by a lowest common denominator foreign policy.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary described earlier, Britain will be given unprecedented scope to co-operate with the EU to protect our citizens from terrorism and organised crime as we regain parliamentary control of our immigration policy. We had a number of important contributions on that point, including from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, and I can reassure them that under the withdrawal agreement our law enforcement agencies will continue to use EU tools and databases throughout the transition period, including SIS II and ECRIS. Paragraph 87 of the declaration states that as the transition period concludes, the UK and the EU have agreed to continue to exchange information on wanted or missing persons and criminal records, and that our future relationship should include those capabilities.
Yvette Cooper
What will the timetable be for the negotiation of a security treaty and its full ratification, and will it be completed within the transition period?
Mr Hunt
Because negotiations involve two parties, I cannot say when they will conclude, but it is the clear intention of both sides that they should conclude before the end of the transition period at the end of 2020. In summary, the future security partnership envisaged in the declaration would enable British and EU law enforcement agencies to share essential data, including passenger name records, fingerprints, DNA and vehicle registrations.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the arrest warrants issued for the alleged Salisbury murderers, an issue of close interest to me as Foreign Secretary. I can reassure her that as part of the future security partnership we have agreed to swift and effective arrangements enabling the UK and member states to surrender suspected and convicted persons efficiently and expeditiously.
Many hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) and for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), spoke passionately about the contribution made by Poles and other EU nationals to their constituencies. I entirely share those sentiments, as do my constituents in South West Surrey. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear how this country will treat the millions of EU citizens who live among us with decency and generosity in all circumstances. I hope and believe that our neighbours will act in the same spirit towards Britons who reside in the EU.
Drew Hendry
Does the Foreign Secretary believe that it is treating people with fairness, dignity and respect to charge them for maintaining their status here? Does he honestly believe that that is the right kind of signal to send out to the people he says are so valued?
Mr Hunt
We make charges to cover administrative costs, just as EU countries make charges for the administrative costs that our citizens incur when in their countries. What is really significant when it comes to generosity is the fact that we have made this offer unconditionally. We made it before any reciprocal offer was made by EU countries in return. That is a sign of how much we value the extraordinarily important contribution that these people make to our national life.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), in a very dignified speech, raised the issue of Galileo. I regret that the EU has unwisely made it impossible for Britain to remain a full partner of the Galileo satellite communication system. Carl Bildt, the former Prime Minister of Sweden, has described the EU’s behaviour on this as
“strategic folly of the first order”.
So we will develop a plan for a sovereign system of our own, because when the EU rejects co-operation, the United Kingdom is perfectly big and confident enough to develop our own alternatives. But if this House rejects the declaration and the withdrawal agreement and we leave the EU without a deal, our security co-operation with our closest neighbours will be put at risk. The reason is that, in a no-deal situation, such co-operation would depend not on any agreement but on good will, and that could well be missing. At a time when threats are evolving and cross-border collaboration has never been more important, our law enforcement agencies would not have the guaranteed channels that they currently have for exchanging essential information with our EU neighbours.
Dr Wollaston
Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that another option would be to extend article 50, and that it is incorrect to present the House with a false choice in which we would automatically fall out on 29 March?
Mr Hunt
I had a conversation with my hon. Friend earlier this evening about how lively things are in her constituency. I think that if any of us asked our own constituents whether the right solution to the dilemmas we face would be to extend the agony by postponing the article 50 due date, they would be absolutely horrified. They want to get this over with. They want to get it resolved.
I mentioned the risks of a no-deal situation to our security, which were recognised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis). They all alluded to that issue.
In conclusion, when it comes to defence and security, irrespective of our membership of the EU, the lesson of history is clear. When Britain and Europe stand together against common foes, our combined strength deters our adversaries and keeps the peace. If we did not do that, our common security would be placed at risk in a way that would be wholly unnecessary. So let us grasp this opportunity for a new and different partnership, post Brexit, based on the essential truth that British and European security are indivisible and, whether inside or outside the legal structures of the EU, our common interests are best served by working together to protect the values we all cherish.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jeremy Quin.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow (Order, 4 December).
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, which is in a state of animation at the prospect of being able to depart, I propose taking motions 3 to 5 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)
That the draft Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 29 October, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Financial Services)
That the draft Central Securities Depositories (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 31 October, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Financial Services and Markets)
That the draft Trade Repositories (Amendment and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 6 November, be approved.—(Jeremy Quin.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6) and Order, 26 November),
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Richard Lloyd to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years with effect from 1 December 2018. —(Jeremy Quin.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 12 December (Standing Order No. 41A).
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that Privy Counsellors are to have a briefing on the implications of the deal under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. If the potential impact of no deal with respect to civil contingencies is regarded as important enough for Privy Counsellors to have a briefing about it, what will we do to ensure that Parliament hears the content of this privileged briefing for certain Members only?
Mr Speaker
I am bound to say that this is the first I have heard of the matter. I am a member of the Privy Council, although of course as Speaker, other than in a tie, I would not vote, so I am probably not a person of any great interest in terms of the delivery of said briefing. I can say only that to the best of my knowledge I have not been invited to such. This is not a matter for me, although the hon. Gentleman might wish it to be.
I would very much hope that all Members would be kept informed on the subject of the implications of upcoming votes. If those implications are thought to be important, it must logically follow that they are important to all Members, and all constituents of all Members, rather than only to a select category of persons. [Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), chunters from a sedentary position that there are several Privy Counsellors present; I have no reason to dispute that proposition, and looking around, it appears to be true, but it is probably also true that there are a lot of people here who are not members of the Privy Council. On a rough estimate, I would say there are more non-Privy Counsellors present than Privy Counsellors, but we can continue our game of rhetorical tiddlywinks elsewhere.
Funding of the Avon and Somerset Police Force
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The petition has been supported, online and on paper, by more than 1,000 of my constituents. It calls for more funding for Avon and Somerset police force. In the past four years, recorded crime in the Avon and Somerset police area has risen by 40%, with violent crime rising by a shocking 75%, but the number of charges being brought has fallen. The petition states:
The petition of constituents of Bristol East constituency,
Declares that Avon and Somerset Police have already had to make £65 million of cuts since 2010, with the loss of nearly 700 front line police officers; and further that The Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable have now warned in their report “The Tipping Point” that the force cannot sustain any further cuts- as proposed by the Government—without extremely serious consequences.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to give Avon and Somerset Police the resources they need to police our streets, prevent crime and protect the public.
And the petitioners remain etc.
[P002302]
South Western Railway Franchise
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
It is something of a relief to speak on a subject that is not Brexit, and is not even vaguely Brexit-related, though if there were a people’s vote, South Western Railway would not survive in its franchise very long.
Let me relay a little history. The south western region, which is the Wessex part of the south of England and the south-western suburbs, which I represent, had a little over two decades of South West Trains, which was owned by the company Stagecoach. I do not think that they were regarded with enormous affection, but they provided a workmanlike service, and certainly nothing that could be described as disastrous. Since the change in the franchise, which was announced in August last year, there has been a rapid deterioration. That is the matter on which I wish to speak.
SWR, or South Western Railway, has joined Southern, Northern and Thameslink at the bottom of the league tables on almost every measure of performance. That is of concern to the people who use the eight stations in the area that I represent in Parliament. But it is not just me; many other MPs in south-west London are concerned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) has established an all-party group that is doing detailed work on the problem and will, I hope, produce a report to enliven this discussion. The concern goes much wider than my constituency.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It has been brought to my attention that the disabled access points on this line are not up to the standard expected by disabled charities and organisations. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the Minister should address the need for modern disabled access points that are technically updated and correct for those who are disabled?
Sir Vince Cable
That was not on my list of complaints, but I am sure we can add it.
The central concerns that people have are the following. First, there has been a marked deterioration in punctuality and reliability. The consumer group Transport Focus measures satisfaction with punctuality and reliability and it has sunk to 65%, which represents a 12% deterioration in the past year.
The second problem is the ability of the rail company to deal with major disruption. When there is somebody on the line or a points problem, we have been used to recovery within a reasonably short space of time. Now, the whole network is disabled for prolonged periods, due to the apparent inability of either Network Rail or South Western to deal with the problem.
The third problem is a strategy that I would call the concentration of misery. Whenever there is a serious disruption, the rail company has the choice of whether to spread it widely or concentrate it on one or two neglected branch lines. What is happening in practice is that some of the branch lines, including the so-called Shepperton line that runs through Fulwell and Hampton in my constituency, are particularly badly affected. The justification given to me by the company is that that affects fewer people, but the effect is that an already poor service becomes impossible. People are not able to get to work or to school and large numbers of cancellations take place. I had a message yesterday from a constituent who boarded a train and it was then announced that it would not stop at any of the announced stops, but would go straight to Waterloo. That kind of experience is commonplace.
There is then the issue of industrial action. I am reluctant to ascribe blame and I am sure that the rail unions have their share of responsibility, but for almost a quarter of a century we had virtually no industrial action in this part of London. It is now frequent and we have had eight major strikes since the change of franchise. Clearly there is a complete breakdown of communication between the employees and the employers.
Then there is the issue of the new timetable that we were promised. It is probably a source of relief that the company has not tried to put it into practice. We are still offered the old timetable, which the company finds extremely difficult to operate.
Last but not least, there is the promise of a 3% fare increase. That has led to probably the most serious and general complaint about the service: that it simply is not value for money. The surveys recently carried out by Transport Focus suggest that only 36% of passengers judge the service to be value for money, and I am sure that is deteriorating by the day.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour, for securing this important debate on a subject that also affects the thousands of people who use the six stations on South Western Railway’s Hounslow loop line—not only my constituents but the thousands who work at GSK, Sky and so on. I agree with him about the disruption to people’s working, daily and family lives, and I share the concern of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about what the promise to remove the guarantee of a second person on the train means for people who are disabled. The situation needs looking at urgently.
Sir Vince Cable
I thank the hon. Lady for that additional information, which is germane and extremely useful.
There have been a couple of serious and authoritative reports by the Office of Rail and Road. Sir Michael Holden was invited to carry out a study, and he has actually run railways, so we think he can be trusted for technical judgment. The analysis that is now available suggests that the following are the main sources of disruption. The first is that the franchise itself was not properly conducted. The company overbid or, to put it another way, underbid for subsidy and is now financially stretched. It appears to be struggling to maintain payments to its financiers, and the consequence is that passenger welfare is being sacrificed and the promised investment is not materialising. There are serious questions for the Department and the Minister about to how the franchise was allowed to take place and result in a serious deterioration of standards. The Government have plenty of experience of refranchising, and why they were allowed to disrupt what was a perfectly serviceable arrangement with the previous franchisee is unclear.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
My right hon. Friend is right to say that the all-party parliamentary group that I set up is looking at this matter in detail. We have a draft report called “Passengers must come first” which focuses, among many other things, on the fact that South Western Railway does not have the money to do what is right for passengers. It is looking after the investors first, and it is not putting money in to deliver on what it promised in the franchise. Unless the Government act, either by taking the franchise away from SWR or by imposing a new contract, passengers are going to keep suffering under shocking performance.
Sir Vince Cable
That is a helpful intervention that anticipates what I am now going to say. Many of the problems do originate with the franchise and the franchisee, but there is some shared responsibility with Network Rail, which of course is a nationalised industry. Network Rail’s failings have been exposed throughout the network, but they are particularly serious here, because the decision was made several years ago to switch the control centre from Waterloo to Basingstoke. As a result, many staff were shed, and a disconnect was established between the running of the trains and the running of the crews, so at least part of the disruption is attributable directly to Network Rail. I think the common consensus is that the nationalised company suffers seriously poor management and many failures, among which is the fact that Network Rail has not updated any of its contingency planning since 2011. It is important to accept that it is not just the franchisee that is responsible for the many failures.
An additional problem is the lack of integration between Network Rail and the franchisee. Under a previous dispensation, the two things were run together. It would probably have been better if the original rail privatisation had properly integrated the franchise and the network, but that was done informally in the south western area under the previous franchise, and it has now completely broken down. There appears to be no integration at all, minimal co-ordination and just an instinct for blaming each other.
The combination of those all factors has led to the serious situation that we have at present, and I would hope that the Government recognise that. To prevent the situation disintegrating to the point at which we have another Southern railway scandal, the Government might intervene now to prevent the situation slipping further. There are several actions they can take, and my right hon. Friend has just summarised them. In relation to the franchise, there are essentially two options, one of which is to take the franchise away and replace the existing company with another—preferably a public service company, but there is a variety of options—and the other is to impose on the franchise a set of performance-related measures so the company is paid only when it delivers on its undertakings.
There are various ways of dealing with this problem. Unlike the Labour party, I do not believe nationalising the franchisee would necessarily help, but we have to find a mechanism by which it can be properly held to account and rewarded for success, rather than rewarded for failure.
The second area of activity that is needed is within Network Rail itself. It is fortunate that Network Rail has just appointed Andrew Haines as its head. I dealt with him extensively when he ran South West Trains, and he is generally thought to be a good manager. Whether he can personally turn this around, I do not know, but it would greatly help if there were proper integration of Network Rail and the franchise in this section of the system. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate how he can help achieve all of that.
There are clearly questions for the Department to answer, notably on the franchise, how it has allowed this to happen and the options available to it to turn the situation around. Although Network Rail is a free-standing operation, though nationalised, it would be useful to have some indication from the Government on how they can push it in the direction of better management and better attention to the serious problems in this region.
Sir Edward Davey
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way a second time.
The point on Network Rail is crucial. Like my right hon. Friend, I have a lot of time for Andrew Haines given our mutual experience of him. However, Network Rail will not be able to get to grips with the challenges of an extraordinarily high level of emergency speed restrictions and temporary speed restrictions across the network. A decade or so ago, there were zero speed restrictions; now there are 70 or 80, which is because of the lack of essential investment. Unless the Department for Transport supports Network Rail with more cash to solve those restrictions, we will get nowhere near the level of timetable resilience that will prevent cancellations and delays, meaning that people’s trains actually run on time.
Sir Vince Cable
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he leads me to my concluding point on the role of the Department itself.
The national rail review is looking at overall performance, and I hope it is able to look at the role of the Department and not just of the rail companies, but there is the additional and crucial point, as my right hon. Friend has just said, that a lot of this depends on available investment. Some of that, of course, has to come from the franchise company, but Network Rail ultimately depends on the willingness of the Treasury and the Department for Transport to make capital spending available in light of what is necessary.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) on securing this debate. He covered a lot of ground and issues in his short speech, and he has brought insight and local knowledge. He is right, as are other hon. and right hon. Members, to speak up for the passengers they represent.
The South Western Railway franchise is enormous, handling more than 400,000 passengers a day who rely on its 1,700 services. Indeed, more than 110,000 passengers pass through Waterloo in the morning peak alone. It is fair to say that service levels have fallen short of expectations, as we all know. That was perhaps most keenly felt on Monday 19 November, when serious disruption was caused on the network by overrunning engineering works, which the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) was keen to highlight. Those overrunning works meant that Network Rail was not able to open a number of lines into Waterloo until after 9.30 am.
Colleagues have asked what action is being taken. Since then, Network Rail has taken action to bring more operational experience to its executive team, including with a change of managing director on that route. People are rightly frustrated and angry with the delays and cancellations, but I want to assure the House that bringing performance back to acceptable levels is our highest priority.
Sir Edward Davey
I just want to make sure that the Minister and the House understand that although it was a shocking performance on that Monday when the works were not completed on time, the cancellations and delays have been going on for more than 18 months. This has been a long, sustained period of shockingly poor management and shockingly dreadful services, which our constituents are suffering daily. I have 10 train stations in my constituency. Most of my constituents rely on these services, and they have to be put right. We need to hear from the Minister about the actions his Department will take to do that.
Andrew Jones
Obviously I am coming on to that, but I wanted to highlight when the problems were at their most acute. I will press on now to make sure that some answers are given in the time available.
A key point is that South Western Railway and Network Rail understand the causes and have put a plan in place to turn performance around. The right hon. Member for Twickenham highlighted the report that was commissioned from Sir Michael Holden and his background as a senior figure in the rail industry. Sir Michael’s report highlighted that no one silver bullet will restore punctuality to previous levels. He cited the main cause for the decline as too little flexibility in the timetable, so that when things do go wrong, they go very wrong and it is difficult for the operator to get back on schedule. I think that is part of the problem that the right hon. Gentleman highlighted when he talked of a “concentration of misery”. It is a very tough thing for the operators to deal with. I visited the train operating centre in south Manchester a few days ago, when I witnessed a nine-minute delay in the Castlefield corridor having a consequential impact of 1,200 lost minutes through delay across the network of the north. We are talking about a network that is stretched taut, and there is little flex.
Sir Michael highlighted other causes: the intensively used, ageing infrastructure, and the ongoing industrial action, which is diverting management attention. Taken together, they have led to an unacceptable level of performance on the South Western Railway network. However, he also points out the potential performance improvement opportunities that a consistent suburban fleet would offer. South Western Railway identified that before the start of the franchise when it ordered a fleet of 90 modern trains. Those trains offer not only performance benefits but a range of features to improve customer journeys. This is an £895 million fleet to cover the entire suburban network, and it is due to enter service from late 2019.
Sir Michael makes 28 recommendations in his report for South Western Railway, Network Rail and the Department to take forward, and I am pleased to say that all have been accepted and are currently being progressed. A number of the recommendations are already complete, and all of his short-term recommendations will be complete by the end of this year.
The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the success of the railways in increasing passenger numbers, which have reached a record high of 1.7 billion. So we are dealing with an industry that is trying to cope with the challenges of growth. In order to deal with that, changes have been made to lengthen platforms on the suburban routes to accommodate 10-car trains. That work is part of the £800 million Wessex capacity enhancement programme, which has also seen major works completed at Waterloo to lengthen the platforms there. I am not sure whether he is aware that starting from Monday 10 December the services from Reading or Windsor & Eton Riverside that call at Twickenham station are scheduled to arrive at one of the four former Waterloo International platforms, which are being brought back into full use. I am sure he will welcome that. It should help relieve some of the issues affecting punctuality, especially in the peaks, because there are periods when trains are waiting outside stations for platforms to become available.
The changes to be introduced through the new franchise by December 2020 will mean an increase in peak capacity of about 30% at Waterloo, so we are talking about more space and less crowding for passengers. However, it is also fair to say that the challenge faced by Network Rail to maintain its assets in a reliable condition gets harder—that was a point made in a number of interventions. I agree entirely that the effect of that has been felt by passengers.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we are investing; well, we certainly are. We are seeing one of the biggest investments in our railway’s history, with £48 billion to be spent by Network Rail in the next control period, which starts next year and will run until 2024. That funding will make a real difference to the passenger experience, because it will go far more towards maintaining and renewing the infrastructure—
Andrew Jones
The right hon. Gentleman has had a very good run. Will he let me press on a little further?
In previous control periods, we have had a bias towards enhancements; this time it will be towards the maintenance and renewal of infrastructure and increasing reliability and punctuality. For South Western’s passengers, the Network Rail Wessex route will see funding increased by 20% compared with the past five years. Work will be taking place over Christmas and the new year, when Network Rail will be investing more than £148 million to improve the network throughout the country for a more reliable railway for passengers. Network Rail’s “team orange” will be out on the Wessex tracks replacing switches and crossings in the Waterloo area, strengthening bridges at Vauxhall and Guildford, and replacing track in the Westbury area. Are the Government acting? Yes, they are. Are the Government investing? Yes, they are.
The new franchise was highlighted—
Sir Edward Davey
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. If he looks at the historical record of investment in the South Western Railway region—the Wessex region—he will see that it is shockingly low compared with the rest of the country. Although there is going to be a small increase, compared with the huge amounts being spent elsewhere the capital investment in the Wessex region is not good enough. Given the problems and the huge numbers of people in the area, will the Minister go away and consider the investment that is going to the region? It is simply not adequate.
Andrew Jones
Every single Member of this House comes to me and says that every other area is being advantaged ahead of their own—
Andrew Jones
I have obviously gone over the facts and we are looking at them, but the point is that we have a programme that is delivering new rolling stock and upgrading the maintenance budgets. It is the largest investment that any Government have made in our railways, so to suggest that the Government are not backing the railways is simply not true. I am just highlighting some of the new things that are coming in.
There were a few questions about the franchise. The winning bidder, First MTR, will be investing £1.2 billion over the course of the franchise. A significant part of that will go on the fleet of new trains that will provide services for the constituents of the right hon. Member for Twickenham and more widely across the suburban services. We expect there to be some significant improvements in passenger experience thanks to new and refurbished rolling stock and smart ticketing options, as well as improved wi-fi provision at stations and beyond.
The franchise performance was clearly of concern. With the new franchise, we have set challenging targets for performance, with a financial incentive that would reward the operator for exceeding those targets. As everybody has said and as we all know, performance is not at the levels that passengers rightly expect, and it is below the target levels in the franchise agreement. South Western Railway is now investing an additional £5 million across a range of initiatives to improve performance. Many of these initiatives are targeted at improving the fleet’s reliability and are designed to reduce instances of services being formed of too few carriages or cancelled.
The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton asked about several issues, including declining performance, but let me first address disabled access on the line, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about. We are dealing with a Victorian rail infrastructure, and disabled access on parts of it is simply not good enough. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point and hope he will understand that we are putting extra funding in between now and 2024. We have made nearly 2,000 stations throughout the country disabled-access friendly, but there is a long way to go and we need to keep up the pressure. The hon. Gentleman was clearly right.
Ruth Cadbury
I accept that a large part of the problem with disabled access is to do with the physical infrastructure, but until that is dealt with, disabled access is dependent on the second staff member in the train being able to put out the ramp for wheelchair users. If the franchisee goes back on guaranteeing that second person on the train, disabled people will not be assured that they can get on and off the trains.
Andrew Jones
The hon. Lady is clearly correct; there is a key role for staff on board trains and at stations in helping people on and off the trains, and that is entirely understood. I should perhaps point out that no staff are being removed from South Western Railway’s trains. There will be more guards on trains in future, not fewer. South Western Railway has been very clear from the outset that no one will lose their job and that every service will continue to have a guard rostered. That is the offer that South Western Railway has made, and it should be seen as excellent news for customers and for South Western Railway itself, but the point about the role of staff in helping people with mobility issues is entirely understood and well made.
The declining performance that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton highlighted predates what we are discussing—it has declined over a considerable number of years. I have gone back and reviewed performance and investment, and the point I would like to make is that we have a plan and we are investing at a record level. All of this will add to the future drumbeat of improved services, and passengers will notice the difference.
The right hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned the Williams review and asked whether it would include the Department for Transport. Yes, it will. It is looking at the structure of the industry. This industry has been one of remarkable growth since the privatisation, with 1 billion extra passenger journeys a year. The system has served us well, delivering more people on to our networks, but the question is whether the structure is right to take it on into the future. If we are asking that question very broadly, the review has to and does include the Department that has a key role to play.
The introduction of the new timetable in May was clearly very problematic, and the industry has apologised for it, as it certainly should have done. Passengers were vastly inconvenienced by it; it was a failure of performance. Lessons have been learned from it, and there has been a review. The head of the Office of Rail and Road, Professor Glaister, has published a report and we will hear more on his recommendations for the future very shortly. The key thing is that lessons are being learned. We are investing in new rolling stock and having a proper hard look at how we can deliver the railway that people need. Colleagues from across the House have been very clear in their expectations of the rail industry and of the Department, and we are making sure that those expectations will be fulfilled.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Competition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(6 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Competition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Christopher. Competition law exists to foster competitive markets to the benefit of consumers. Specifically, anti-trust law prohibits companies from engaging in anti-competitive agreements and abusing a dominant market position. Merger rules exist to ensure that mergers do not substantially lessen competition and harm consumers. The UK has a world-renowned competition regime, but currently the domestic system is highly integrated with the European Union competition system.
The primary aim of this statutory instrument, therefore, is to remove provisions in domestic legislation that are associated with being part of the EU competition system. Although the draft withdrawal agreement with the EU sets out separation arrangements on competition, the Government are preparing for all contingencies. Should we leave the EU without an agreement in place, this SI would minimise litigation risk for the Competition and Markets Authority and provide legal clarity and certainty for businesses and consumers. The SI has been the subject of extensive consultation with stakeholders, including the CMA, the Competition Appeal Tribunal and specialist competition lawyers. The views expressed were taken into account in developing the content of the SI.
The SI revokes the retained versions of EU competition legislation and switches off directly effective treaty rights contained in European economic area and EU treaties. They will become part of UK law as retained EU law at the point of exit, but they will be redundant, as the UK has its own competition regime, which will continue to protect consumers from anti-competitive behaviour. The SI makes amendments to the Competition Act 1998, the Enterprise Act 2002 and other primary and secondary legislation containing competition provisions. An impact assessment was not undertaken for the SI, as the impact for business and the Exchequer will be minimal.
The 1998 Act sets out the prohibitions against anti-competitive conduct in the UK and empowers the CMA and UK sector regulators to investigate and take enforcement action against infringements of those prohibitions. Under EU law and that Act, the CMA and sector regulators also have the power to investigate and take enforcement action against infringements of EU competition law. The Act also provides for investigation co-operation among the UK, the European Commission and member states’ national competition authorities. This SI amends the Act to remove the CMA’s power to investigate anti-competitive agreements under EU competition law, as it will investigate solely under UK law after exit.
Currently, section 60 of the 1998 Act provides that competition regulators and UK courts must interpret UK competition law in a manner consistent with EU competition law. This SI repeals section 60 and introduces a new section 60A. It provides that UK courts and regulators will continue to ensure consistency with pre-exit EU competition case law when interpreting UK competition law. However, they may depart from that case law, where appropriate, in specified circumstances.
This approach aims to provide consistency and clarity in the law for courts, regulators and businesses that look to legal precedent when interpreting the law. It also allows the competition regulators and UK courts to depart, where appropriate, from EU case law. Currently, claimants can pursue private damages claims in UK courts, based on enforcement decisions of the European Commission and the CMA. After exit, claimants will still be able to bring private damages claims in UK courts. However, UK courts will not be bound by the European Commission decisions. This approach aligns with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which provides that UK courts will not be bound by decisions of EU courts after exit.
The European Commission makes block exemption regulations, which exempt certain categories of agreements from EU competition law where they are believed to have a beneficial effect on competition. Agreements which benefit from an EU block exemption are also exempt from UK competition law. At exit, all of the seven current block exemptions will be incorporated into UK law as retained block exemptions. Agreements that meet the terms of the retained block exemptions will continue to be exempt from domestic competition law. The SI amends and retains block exemptions so that they operate effectively in domestic law. It also empowers the Secretary of State to vary or revoke the retained exemptions.
The Enterprise Act 2002 contains the rules on mergers. Currently, the CMA is responsible for investigating mergers, to ensure that they do not have anti-competitive effects in the UK market. However, if a merger triggers the turnover thresholds set out in the new EU merger regulation, it is reviewed by the European Commission, including the UK aspects of the merger. After exit, the EU merger regulation will no longer apply in the UK, and the UK dimensions of mergers will be reviewed solely by the CMA. The SI amends the 2002 Act to remove references to the EU merger regulation and other provisions related to being part of the EU’s one-stop shop for merger clearance in the single market.
The SI also makes transitional arrangements for CMA anti-trust and merger cases that are live at the point of exit, so that those cases can continue to be managed effectively. It also makes minor amendments to two pieces of Northern Irish legislation, including removing references to the EU anti-trust prohibitions and amending a reference to section 60 of the Competition Act 1998. These changes align with changes being made to the 1998 Act and have been agreed with the permanent secretaries of the relevant Northern Ireland Departments.
Anti-trust law protects consumers from anti-competitive behaviour. The amendments contained in the SI provide legal clarity and continuity to businesses. Similarly, mergers are an important component of our healthy and growing economy. It is vital that we safeguard the legal framework that gives companies the confidence to engage in mergers in the UK. It is also important that consumers continue to be protected from mergers that diminish competition. This SI achieves those goals by maintaining the strength of the UK’s current competition system, while making only those changes designed to separate the UK competition system from that of Europe in a no-deal scenario.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I note that we have 82 minutes remaining for our deliberations.
I thank the Minister for writing to me in detail a few weeks ago about this important, detailed and complicated matter, which relates to how we adjust domestic competition law in the event of no deal. It is perhaps appropriate to ask the Minister to indicate what the Government’s plans will be for addressing changes to domestic competition law if there is a deal.
The SI raises a number of questions, starting with what the consequences will be for existing competition proceedings under EU law. The UK element of disputes that involve overseas businesses with UK operations will be affected, so will the Minister explain how things will work in the event of no deal when businesses are involved in disputes that cross jurisdictions between the UK and the EU? I am not entirely clear that her speech or the explanatory memorandum have addressed how the Government see that issue being resolved.
The Minister said that no impact assessment had been carried out. An awful lot of legislation is being amended merely to cover the costs of leaving the EU. Will she take this opportunity to confirm that the Government will not allow no deal, to avoid those costs? Will she set out her view on how the Government will go about avoiding no deal? [Interruption.] I note that the Government Whip is shaking her head; I cannot possibly imagine why. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view.
If I have counted correctly, the Practical Law UK website describes a total of 18 pieces of legislation that will be amended by the draft regulations, with a further eight consequential changes and five more amendments that require secondary legislation. That is a significant shift in legislation. Is a statutory instrument appropriate for such a major change? When the Minister read out the title of the regulations, I noted that it includes the word “etc.” Now, what does “etc.” mean? [Interruption.] She points out that it covers a long list of potential areas.
The draft regulations cover a lot of ground—a vast array of legislation is being amended. The Minister used the phrase “highly integrated”, which gives us a clue about the complexity. I suggest that there is rather more involved than changing the wording from “EU” to “UK” in multiple pieces of legislation. It is a surprise to Opposition Members that a statutory instrument is considered sufficient for such an important topic. Might it have been better to scrutinise the impact on each of the specific pieces of legislation that she described? She summarised the situation in her opening remarks, but there seems to be quite a lot more to it than is perhaps implied in the explanatory memorandum.
According to the Practical Law UK website, the Competition and Markets Authority has indicated that it will have a much bigger role after Brexit. That is self-evident, given the competition law responsibilities that the UK is to take on from the EU. What assessment have the Government made of the CMA’s capacity and of its ability to address its additional responsibilities?
The CMA will also have a new role in relation to state aid. Will the Minister spell out what that role will be? We know that the Government have often been reluctant to use state aid. They are far less prepared to do so than other countries, including our European partners, or to organise tenders in a way that supports UK businesses. I remember the lengthy debates we had in 2010, when I was first elected to Parliament, about the competition between Siemens and Bombardier for Crossrail trains. The contract went to Siemens rather than to UK-based Bombardier, which shows the Government’s reluctance to support UK-based industry.
I read on Friday that the Government had issued the tender for fleet solid support ships as an international competition, on the grounds that they are not naval ships. There is no one in the navy or in the shipbuilding industry who regards fleet solid support ships as anything other than naval ships; it seems that only the Government do that. However, the consequence is that we now have an international tender, rather than a domestic opportunity for domestic shipyards, which is causing huge problems for the workers at Cammell Laird shipyard in the Liverpool city region. As the Government do not regard these ships as being naval, I wonder—because it is in the papers—whether they are covered by the liner shipping block exemption. Perhaps the Minister can answer that question.
What consultation has been undertaken regarding potential future divergence between the EU and the UK on competition law? Perhaps the Minister has the results of that consultation and can share them with us.
I put to the Minister comments made by the UK Trade Policy Observatory:
“An issue which was addressed in the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is the scenario where UK courts are obliged to follow EU judgments that pre-date Brexit. The new s60A (7) provides that the relevant court or decision-maker may disapply the interpretative obligation if they consider that to be appropriate in the light of various criteria”.
What guidance will the Government give to decision makers?
The UK Trade Policy Observatory also says that
“a claimant for a private damages action will have to open new proceedings in the UK courts, and would be well-advised to do so now for any current investigations before the European Commission”,
because
“an infringement of EU competition will no longer be binding after Brexit for the purpose of follow-on actions in the UK courts.”
I would be interested to know whether the Minister agrees with that observation. If she does not agree with it, what might her analysis be?
Significant, wide-ranging changes are being proposed in the event of no deal. Parliamentary scrutiny of them involves just the small selection of Members on this Committee, following a similar Committee sitting yesterday in the other place. As I have said, several dozen pieces of legislation are affected—sometimes, as the Minister indicated in her opening remarks, in significant ways.
This SI gives rise to many questions and I question whether we are able to do it justice. I am not a lawyer and neither is the Minister, although undoubtedly she has lawyers advising her. I question whether this process allows for adequate scrutiny. It is a very good example of why the Government really must do everything in their power to avoid the prospect of no deal.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Christopher, and I am very grateful to have heard the Minister’s explanation of the measure. All I would really say is that it is hard to see how Westminster will be able to handle competition issues any better than Brussels has.
I note that the political declaration discusses
“creating a free trade area combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition”.
Competition is clearly vital to our economy, and we must not fall behind our European neighbours. Many UK businesses are subject to EU competition laws already, and divergence would create unnecessary red tape.
Having said that, I do not oppose today’s regulations. They are somewhat sensible and necessary given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, but I seek some reassurance from the Minister on what additional costs they come with. Financial regulators are already underfunded, and I wonder what increased cost will come from the measures.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Christopher. I am not a lawyer, but before I came to this place, I worked for BT for some 19 years. During that time, I developed the training for 100,000 people on the consequences of the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002 for the company.
The consideration I ask of my hon. Friend the Minister is twofold. The legislation should protect consumers from anti-competitive behaviour and also ensure that we do not get companies merging together to create monopolies that damage the rights of the consumer. As we leave the European Union, the companies involved in that potential behaviour are large corporate companies across the world. As we are passing this legislation, what is there to protect us? What rights will there be in our courts to prevent large companies across the world from damaging our economy? What protections will there be for consumers to prevent that from happening?
Kelly Tolhurst
I was wondering whether I might be able to start by answering the hon. Member for Saffron Central.
Kelly Tolhurst
I apologise; I often get annoyed when people refer to my constituency as Rochester and “Stroud”, rather than “Strood”.
The hon. Gentleman asked what we would do with the regulations if we entered into a deal, bearing in mind that we are talking about this statutory instrument as a no-deal SI. This SI is about retaining EU law. Were we to enter into a deal, we would bring further SIs to the House to modify the current regulations.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about how we would work cross-jurisdictionally and is unsatisfied with the explanatory memorandum. The CMA, our regime and how the UK has dealt with competition law over the years have a high regard internationally. We co-operate and are part of a number of international bodies. We are regarded as having a world-class framework and operation. There is absolute commitment from the Government to ensuring that, where we can, we co-operate with other states and the EU. Even in a no-deal scenario, the intention will be to ensure that regulators at that level will be able to seek to enter into co-operation agreements bilaterally to ensure that consumers are protected. Ultimately, the European Union and the UK are committed to protection for consumers, as I have said a number of times over the past few weeks in Committees.
Bill Esterson
Is the problem not that, if there is no deal, by definition there will not be an agreement to ensure that co-operation? How does the Minister envisage the CMA and our competition framework coping in that situation?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Gentleman is right: if we enter a no-deal situation, we will not have a deal with the European Union. However, our world-respected bodies, such as the CMA and other regulators, are communicating on a daily and weekly basis with their counterparts in not only Europe but other parts of the world. There is nothing to suggest that that co-operation, communication and co-working would change, and we would seek for it to be continued. We still want to co-operate with our international partners, and I cannot foresee a situation, with or without a deal, where that would not happen. That is my understanding.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s question about whether it is right that we are debating this big SI in a short Committee, I highlight that the SI changes two big pieces of legislation. Remember that we are retaining EU law, so the SI is not a change in policy; it is about retaining what we have, to make it fit so that on day one, were we to leave the European Union without a deal, our statute book would function.
The first piece of legislation is the Competition Act 1998, and the SIs that sit under it. We have all sat through a number of SI Committees. In the years I have been a Member of Parliament, many small statutory instruments have altered larger pieces of legislation. The second piece of legislation is the Enterprise Act 2002, and other SIs that have been introduced that relate to the EU, and to the block exemption that I mentioned. The “etc.” refers to the other pieces of legislation, consideration of which we have all sat through. From looking at a hard copy of the Bill, a number of minor changes are clearly being made. That gives Members an idea of why we are discussing this matter in Committee, as opposed to having a wider debate.
With regard to whether the CMA is capable of continuing to do its job given the potential increase of work in a no-deal scenario, we expect that the CMA might have an increased case load of between five and seven antitrust cases in a year. We have also assessed—working with the CMA, obviously—that the CMA might have to deal with between 15 and 30 extra merger cases over a year.[Official Report, 17 December 2018, Vol. 651, c. 4MC.] The National Audit Office has looked at the CMA and believes that it has robust plans in place to operate and function after we leave the EU.
As Members will know, in 2017 in the spring statement the Chancellor put £3 billion aside over a two-year period for funding our EU exit. In the spring statement of this year, the Chancellor announced just under £24 million extra for the CMA. The CMA is going through a recruitment process to increase its number of workers. That will constitute a substantial increase in the size of the CMA, and I am reliably informed that the CMA is working to plan, and recruitment is on target at the moment.
State aid is not part of today’s SI, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Sefton Central will be pleased to hear that the Government will soon lay an SI on that issue. I look forward to having greater conversations with him about the merits—or not—of state aid, and what he would like to see in the future.
Regarding divergence, as the hon. Gentleman explained and as I understand it, post-exit decisions in the European courts will be notable by UK courts, but not binding on UK courts. The idea that previous case law becomes part of UK case law history has come about because businesses need certainty and decision makers need to be able to look at that: it is quite right that pre-exit case law remains the bank of case law. However, as we have determined, UK courts will not be bound by that case law, although they will obviously have regard to it. Going forward, we need businesses to have assurance that previous case law has set the precedent, but as we have outlined in the SI, UK courts can diverge from it.
As regards the guidance that we will be giving on that point, it is case law: obviously, it will be defined by judgments. As the hon. Gentleman knows, markets, competition and things are changing all the time, so the guidance will also change over time. At that point, if necessary, we will give guidance to the relevant individuals. The hon. Gentleman mentioned bringing claims in the UK for things happening within the jurisdiction of the European Union. That is true: they will be brought here in the UK. I believe we can do so under UK law in UK courts. Also on that point, there is an ability to bring a civil, private claim in the UK under foreign tort law anyway.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East asked what we will do to make sure that the UK protects its consumers from the big corporate organisations that are perceived to potentially cause restrictions and competition issues in the UK. As I outlined, our competition law in the UK is world renowned; we are respected internationally for the way we deal with such cases, and we already have great co-operation with international organisations.
To give one example, in the Google investigation a UK market was one of the main ones being investigated, and most of the claimants came from the UK market. I hope that gives my hon. Friend some comfort that, even if we are in a no-deal situation, if this SI is agreed we will be more than ready to take on those challenges and we will continue to maintain co-operation with our international partners and the European Union to make sure that the protection of UK consumers is at the heart of what they are doing.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for the explanation she has given. One aspect of European competition law is the economic assessment of what constitutes a monopoly. We could be in a position where something would not constitute a monopoly in the UK, but would be a direct threat to UK consumer interests, and would still be a monopoly in the European Union. What would be the position under the SI for consumers to gain protection as a result?
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend is right when he talks about the thresholds. Obviously, for the UK to take a particular action, the monopoly would have to meet our threshold abilities. It would, however, be down to the CMA to take forward cases, based on a number of different assessments. We do not expect—I do not expect—that the regulations will put the UK in a worse place. In fact, we could argue that there are benefits: under the regulations, the UK will make those decisions directly for UK consumers, rather than the decisions being taken at a distance. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.
I thank the Committee for its consideration of the regulations. I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central for his contribution and for the questions that he has asked me. He is absolutely right to do so, because it is an important debate and we are talking about the protection of UK consumers.
The amendments in the regulations are essential. If they were not passed, businesses would lack clarity as to how to act, and the CMA’s decisions would face a considerable litigation risk. It is vital that consumers continue to be protected from anti-competitive behaviour in the event of no deal.
As I have outlined several times, the UK has a world-renowned competition system. The regulations make no change to that system beyond correcting the deficiencies in retained EU law. We can all agree that it is essential that the regulations are in place in the event of a no-deal outcome. The amendments will ensure legal clarity for businesses, reduce litigation and protect consumers. They will also provide a smooth transition from the current system in the EU to a stand-alone UK competition regime in the event of a no-deal exit. I trust that I have answered all the Committee’s questions and I hope the Committee approves the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Competition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Ministerial Correction
(6 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(6 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Exactly what are we signing up to at Marrakesh?
Harriett Baldwin
We are signing up to the global compact on refugees. I should clarify for the House that it is a different document from the one that has perhaps generated more controversy: the global compact on migration.
[Official Report, 4 December 2018, Vol. 650, c. 647.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Africa:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne).
The correct response should have been:
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Exactly what are we signing up to at Marrakesh?
Harriett Baldwin
We are signing up to the global compact on migration. I should clarify for the House that it is a different document and has perhaps generated more controversy than the global compact on refugees.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Twenty First sitting)
Wednesday 5th December 2018
(6 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 2017-19 View all Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 4 July 2018 - (5 Jul 2018)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that electronic devices should be switched to silent mode. As we know —by now, I can say this without reading the notes—the Committee cannot consider the clauses of the Bill until the House has agreed to the money resolution.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Committee do now adjourn.
Once again, Ms Dorries, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This week has seen some unprecedented debates about parliamentary procedure, setting a collision course towards a constitutional crisis. At best, it is a dispute over the rights of Parliament versus the rights of the Government. These are the same issues that are at the heart of my private Member’s Bill and the same issues of the Government stalling progress.
My Bill would protect the balance between paid-up Government Ministers and Back-Bench MPs by retaining 650 as the total number of MPs. That is what makes it so ironic that the Government are overreaching their Executive powers: by refusing to grant a money resolution, they are exactly proving my point. Perhaps the Minister will consider granting us all an early Christmas present by allowing the Bill to progress.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
As ever, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton in saying that in a week when the House has passed a motion saying that Ministers in this Government have held Parliament in contempt, it sends a message about the sorry state we are in when Opposition day votes are not being adhered to and money resolutions are not coming forward for Bills that have been given a Second Reading in the House.
My only observation for the Committee this morning is about the feeling in this place. There is clearly a very volatile atmosphere, and it feels like the last days of a dying Government. The irony is that we will probably be going back to the electorate fairly soon for a general election, and it will be based on the old boundaries. There is a consensus in this House to look at the boundaries again, but not to reduce the seats from 650. We are in a very sorry state of affairs just now.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
What a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship once again, Ms Dorries! That pleasure continues, even if the pleasure of turning up unproductively to this Committee week after week also continues. It is always good to see you in the Chair.
I must echo my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton and the hon. Member for Glasgow East. The Government are descending into a slough of obloquy and quite frankly things have every hallmark of chaos. Will the Minister do the Committee a favour and show a little of the respect that the Government have not shown to the House this week by giving us an update on the orders whose publication we have been waiting for? She told us a couple of months ago that the problem was that they were very complicated. Will she update us on any conversations that she or her officials have had with the parliamentary draftsman? Does she feel that we are any closer today to seeing those orders published so that we can test the will of the House?
I look forward to seeing you again next week or the week after, Ms Dorries.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
I add to the comments of my fellow MPs. Yesterday, the Government were found to be in contempt of Parliament; I would say that having us come here week after week is a pretty contemptuous procedure as well, because there is a cost to Members’ time and officers’ time. It is pretty contemptuous of the taxpayer, who is ultimately paying the bill. I would like those comments noted for the record, please.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
I can confirm that work continues on the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Free Schools and Academies in England
(6 years 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
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of free schools and academies in England.
I am delighted to have secured the debate, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) for his perseverance, when he was Education Secretary, in bringing forward the Academies Act 2010, which revolutionised the way schools operate. I also pay tribute to the Minister for School Standards, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb)—a veritable rock of stability in Government—who has been making things happen almost throughout the process. Naysayers said that it would not work; they called it an experiment and accused us of creating a divide in the state school system. Eight years on, we see that they were wrong. The first free schools and new academies opened in 2011 and our schools are performing better than ever. Whereas only 68% of state-funded schools were good or outstanding in 2010, that jumped to 89% at the end of August 2017.
Nowhere is more exemplary of the benefits that free schools and academies bring to the system than the two boroughs in my constituency—the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham. Indeed, K and C and H and F—under the Conservatives until 2014—have been the vibrant nucleus of schools reform since 2010. In those two boroughs, which are the smallest in London, an astonishing five new secondary schools have opened since 2010, and every one of them is a free school or academy. Kensington Aldridge Academy, Chelsea Academy, Hammersmith Academy, Fulham Boys School and West London Free School are providing places for more than 3,700 students. I attended three of the openings—two of them with the Secretary of State at the time.
This year’s GCSE results show that the schools are doing fantastically well: 85% of exams at West London Free School were awarded grades 9 to 4, which in old money is A* to C. Chelsea Academy’s results were in the top 10% nationally, with 30% of its English and maths awards at grades equivalent to the old A* and A grades. At Kensington Aldridge Academy, at the foot of Grenfell Tower and deeply affected by the tragedy last year, students perform a third of a grade better at A-level than those with the same GCSE results in other schools. That is the highest progress score in the whole borough. Four of Britain’s top 12 primary schools are in Kensington and Chelsea. It is a remarkable record.
Kensington and Chelsea has the best schools in the country, and that is even more remarkable given the fact that the most affluent 50% of the borough chooses to opt out of the state system in its entirety. Despite that, the borough has four of the 12 best performing primary schools in the country, and some excellent secondary schools. Throughout both boroughs, including conversions to academy status, we have no fewer than 30 free schools and academies. I am delighted to say that every one of them—100%—has received a rating of good or outstanding. That is a testament to the success of those schools.
One of the great things about the free schools and academies programme is the autonomy they have in setting pay levels, conditions and hours, which allows them to keep the best talent in the classrooms. When teachers play an indispensable role in nurturing the young minds of children, they should feel a part of the decision-making process, because recognising teachers as experts in their fields and empowering them in that way is a vital part of retention. Fulham Boys School is an excellent example of that. I should declare that I am a co-patron of the school. Remarkably for an inner-London school, in the past four years only five teachers have left—every one of them to be promoted, or because for life reasons they were moving out of London. It is possible to find other state-funded schools that have had a turnover of 100% in the same period. Teachers see themselves spending their entire career at Fulham Boys School and they become long-term mentors to students—familiar, stable figures throughout a child’s education.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Schools also have autonomy over exclusion policy. The Select Committee onEducation looked at the escalating number of exclusions from academies in the borough of Stockton-on-Tees, but it has no power to influence what the schools do. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Ministers need to look more closely at exclusions and why they are happening, and at why some children are denied a full education?
Greg Hands
I think that it is sensible to keep those policies under review at all times. I am not familiar with the situation in Stockton-on-Tees, but I think that the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I am sure that the Minister has noted it.
I want to quote a helpful contribution from the headmaster of the Fulham Boys School, a remarkable man called Alun Ebenezer—he is from your part of the world, Mr Davies, although he was in Cardiff, not Swansea. He wrote that he was happy in his position:
“And yet, eight months later, I decided to apply for a headship at a school that had no site, no pupils, no staff, no exam results, nothing in the trophy cabinet and was 150 miles from my homeland. Why?
Because the opportunity to build a school from scratch, the vision set out for that school and the ideology of the free school movement was so alluring. It was an opportunity to make a difference, challenge society, transform young people’s lives; to shake up the established order. I came to London to show what a free school could do when it properly embraces its freedom…I believe the first four years of FBS have done just that.”
That is the kind of can-do attitude that is seen in so many schools in my constituency.
Another example of schools doing as well as that is the group of Ark schools, of which there are five between the two boroughs. They have led the way in teacher training innovations. Their Now Teach venture, set up in 2016, was designed to encourage high-flyers to retrain as teachers. They get on board the lawyers, doctors and bankers of the world to inspire children and become role models in the classroom. Such innovation is possible only when schools are freed from red tape and the bureaucratic decision-making processes of councils.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend add parents to the list of people that schools should involve? It is crucial that they are involved in a big way in the running of schools. That solves many of the problems that teachers have with things such as discipline.
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The role of parents is vital. Many free schools are parent-led initiatives. I first met people involved with Fulham Boys School in late 2010 or early 2011, along with the then Secretary of State for Education, to discuss how to proceed. Groups of parents in my constituency come to me all the time with all kinds of innovative ideas. I shall talk about some of the problems they face, particularly with finding sites, but my hon. Friend has made a powerful point.
Schools of the kind I am talking about are also doing extremely well nationally, with nearly double the proportion of primary schools rated outstanding, compared with all state-funded primary schools. Secondary free schools and academies are also ahead of state-run maintained schools in the proportion rated outstanding; 30% of free schools have been judged outstanding, compared with 21% of other schools. I see more and more demand. I have come across groups looking for particular specialisms, such as the group of Spanish-speaking Fulham residents who have come to talk to me about setting up a bilingual free school, and another from Fulham’s French community. Other people are looking at subject specialisms. The idea has really driven innovation in my constituency.
However, some issues with the system still need ironing out. Despite all this excellent news, we must not be complacent. There should be no presumption of preferred suppliers of academy chains.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention. We can all celebrate the success of schools in local authorities as well as academies, and it is great that the Government built on the legacy left by the Blair Government, which invested tremendously in education over many years. Does he share my concern about support for failing academies? The regional schools commissioner in the north-east is struggling to find a partner for one of our schools in the Stockton borough. It was even suggested at one stage that a failing academy chain should take it over. Months later, it still does not have a partner, because when people look at the books they realise that the falling roll means there are insufficient resources to do what they need to achieve. Ministers need to intervene there quite heavily.
Greg Hands
Again, I am not familiar with the particular local circumstances of the hon. Gentleman’s area. I would say that of course there will be examples of schools in difficulties, across all categories of school, but the statistics for this are absolutely clear: free schools and academies are significantly more likely to be succeeding than other schools. That is what the evidence clearly shows. But I agree that any school facing difficulties will need careful attention from relevant local or national authorities.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman makes a passionate defence of the schools in his constituency, which is the first thing a constituency MP does, but there is no evidence anywhere to show that academisation means that schools are performing better.
Greg Hands
I disagree. I have already read out quite a bit of evidence from the statistics behind the academies outperforming the rest of the sector: 65% of those inspected saw their grades improve from inadequate to either good or outstanding, having been transformed into academies. Multi-academy trusts enable our best performing schools to help struggling schools improve all the time. The evidence speaks for itself in the statistics I read out earlier and in the Government’s overall improvement in school standards.
Returning to my point about where we need to improve, one size does not fit all for education. Schools cannot simply be transposed from one part of the country to another or rolled out in a cookie-cutter approach simply because they have worked in one format. There has to be room for local organic growth. I will put on the record my frustration with the Education and Skills Funding Agency, which must do better at working with schools to anticipate and resolve problems in site delivery. The Fulham Boys School, which has been waiting to move to its new site for some time now, has been particularly affected. The ESFA should, in this regard, harness local knowledge and relationships rather than necessarily relying on centralised procurement processes.
Schools need certainty to plan for their futures. I thank the current Secretary of State for meeting me and the school last summer—I know we have another school coming up—and trying to drive through the move to the new site in Heckfield Place in my constituency. I will quote again from the school’s headmaster, whose blog post title overdoes it the other way. It is entitled, “Why the free school movement will fail”, which I think is far too pessimistic. The title does not really match the content. He writes:
“My view, shaped over the last 4 years, is that bureaucrats’ delivery of Free school policy is directly frustrating government’s aspirations for it… Secondly, Free schools like FBS are constantly being frustrated and hampered by slow moving bureaucracy, red tape and ‘process’.”
I will add into the mix here that one of the most extraordinary meetings I ever had in Government, when I was a Minister, was taking the Fulham Boys School in to meet some of the ESFA officials. One official—admittedly, he was an outside contractor—said to the Fulham Boys School, which is also a Church of England school, “You are a faith school, so you must have belief that your school will open.” He could not offer specific reassurances on the site or when the contractors doing the site would be ready. He simply said to them that, as a faith school, they needed to believe. I do not know how religious you are, Mr Davies, but I would say that even the most evangelical of people would want to see something slightly more concrete than that on the table.
Unfortunately, progress has come to a grinding halt under Labour in Hammersmith and Fulham. The borough has failed to provide additional school places that are needed, particularly for the bulge in secondary school numbers that is coming up. Ironically, despite all these new schools, the borough now has the lowest figure for first-choice secondary school placements in England—it is absolutely rock bottom of that league table. Hammersmith and Fulham simply does not have enough places at quality schools that parents want their children to go to.
The council itself predicts that by 2027 there will be a deficit of 327 places for students between years 7 and 11, not including sixth form. That is 327 students without a place by the year 2027. Kensington and Chelsea also has a problem, as the figure there is projected to stand at 195 students by 2023-24. There is also something there that needs fixing. Creating additional secondary school places is a challenge in a constituency such as mine, especially finding sites in the two boroughs I represent, where land is incredibly expensive. We need to recognise some of the difficulty in doing that. It is easier said than done.
Nevertheless, the popularity of these schools at secondary level is evidenced by how over-subscribed they are. West London Free School receives nearly 10 applications for every year 7 place. At Lady Margaret School, which is a conversion to an academy, it is nearly seven applicants per place. These schools continually top parents’ lists of first preferences, and all of them outperform others in their area. It is, of course, great news that the Department for Education expects around another 1,000 maintained schools to become academies over the next two years, and that 110 new schools opening by 2020 will be free schools. There was also news in September that 53 new free schools and one university technical college will be creating up to 40,000 new school places.
That is the picture locally: excellence, popularity of these schools, and continuing drive from parents to create more of them. We have a deficit of school places and parents are demanding these kinds of innovative schools, but they are concerned—I will put my cards on the table—at what they are hearing from the Labour party about its plans. I was amazed at the speech by the shadow Secretary of State for Education at the Labour party conference. I doubt that you personally had the misfortune to be there, Mr Davies, because I know you are a sensible man, but she said—
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Hands, it is probably not a good idea to make assumptions about the Chair to which I cannot respond, but do continue.
Greg Hands
I apologise, Mr Davies. You are quite right, of course. The shadow Secretary of State for Education said:
“We’ll start by immediately ending the Tories’ academy and free schools programmes. They neither improve standards nor empower staff or parents.”
I put it to the Opposition spokesman today that I have outlined in 17 minutes a lot of the progress that has been made in my constituency and the popularity and success of these schools. Parents with children at the schools are alarmed at the Labour party’s position and what it might mean, particularly if they have a Labour council that also believes in his policy. I invite him to put on record that these parents and all the groups coming to see me now who want to set up new free schools have no reason to be afraid. There is an incredible diversity of parents and others looking to take advantage of this innovation, and it would be fantastic if we could hear from him that their fears are unfounded. I will sit down and give others an opportunity to contribute to the debate, but I look forward to hearing the responses from the Front Benchers in due course.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) for securing the debate and for giving us an insight into how schools are improving in his constituency. I think he will find that our experience in Ellesmere Port and Neston is a little bit more mixed. Of course, every area is slightly different, but one thing he said that I was very interested to hear was about staff turnover in a particular school. That is a real challenge in trying to drive up standards, and I would certainly like to hear more, perhaps after the debate, about what was done in that school to keep staff numbers so stable, because there is no doubt that the best schools are those that can recruit and retain the most impressive staff.
I must declare an interest: my wife is the cabinet member for children and young people at Cheshire West and Chester Council, and two of my children attend a local school in my constituency.
Cheshire West and Chester Council has an impressive record in education, with more than 90% of its schools rated good or outstanding and a plan for every school in the borough to reach that standard. If that council were a multi-academy trust, Ministers would be singing its praises and finding ways to bring struggling schools from across the area under its leadership. Instead, because it is a local authority, the push has been in the opposite direction, with pressure put on governing bodies to convert schools to academies. That is a perfect example of why Government policy is not always about rewarding what works best or bringing people together to improve. This policy is about an ideological drive towards academies and free schools, and I think that, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said, it is an experiment that is failing.
The flaws in the Government’s drive towards academisation at all costs are clear to see in my constituency, following the serious decline of one academy over a number of years, to the extent that an entire cohort of young people have in effect been failed by the system. That is not to say that there was not some excellent teaching at the school or that we are not incredibly proud of the skills and talents of our young people, but when inspection after inspection raised serious concerns, something needed to be done. If it had been a local authority school, there is no doubt that that would have been enough for the Government to declare that the leadership of the school had failed and the school would need to be converted into an academy. Instead, after years of indecision, the remedy prescribed is more of the same.
A decision has been made to re-broker the schools within the trust to new sponsors, and although we are all hoping for the best from the new sponsors, parents are understandably anxious to ensure that the same situation does not arise. I know that the new sponsors are making real efforts to engage with parents. However, the process took far too long, and all the time the council was willing and able to step in and help, had it been asked. I would therefore like the Minister to explain, if he can, what the rationale is for preventing high-achieving local authorities such as Cheshire West and Chester from bringing academies back under their control. Is there a sound evidence base for the policy, and does it have the support of headteachers and teachers, or is it in reality an ideological decision?
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) referred to this, but when I consider that there are more than 100 failing academies, looking for new sponsors, that are responsible for 70,000 children, I have to conclude that ideology is hampering those children’s opportunity to get a good education, because there does not appear to be a plan B. We have heard a lot about there being no plan Bs in other areas recently, and it appears that there is no plan B for failing academies either.
Even if my local school were an isolated case, that would be reason enough to revisit the Government’s approach, but a Schools Week investigation found that at least 91 multi-academy trusts had closed or were in the process of being wound up since 2014. The Government hand out grants of between £70,000 and £150,000 for new academy sponsors to set up a trust, and cover running costs until the first school opens. If each of the 91 closed trusts received just the lowest possible grant, which of course may not have been the case—it may have been more—the Government will have paid at least £6.1 million to set them up. Then there are the debts that the Department has to write off when a trust collapses—£3 million in the case of University of Chester Academies Trust, a deficit in the region of £8 million at the Schools Company Trust, £500,000 in the case of Lilac Sky Schools Academy Trust and £300,000 owed by the Collective Spirit Community Trust.
In a time of real-terms cuts to local schools budgets, how can the Government justify spending at least £10 million, possibly a lot more, on failing multi-academy trusts? Then there is money coming out at the other end, with reports of an academy head receiving an £850,000 pay-off. That simply would not be allowed anywhere else in the public sector, so why is it allowed in this case?
It is simply not a level playing field at the moment. A local school tells me that it is desperate to expand, but does not have the opportunity to bid for capital funding to achieve that aim. How can it build on its success when it is unable to build? I am sure that if it reopened as a free school, there would be no problem in getting the cash, but why does it need to reinvent the wheel? Why are existing schools that have put the effort in, have made great improvements and are already an established part of the community discriminated against because they are not part of the latest fad from Government? How about a capital funding policy that rewards improvement and looks at where existing provision can be augmented?
Has all the money spent on academies been well spent? Let us take the words of David Laws:
“What we know is the most successful part of the academisation programme was the early part of it…Those early academies had absolutely everything thrown at them. They were academised school by school, with huge ministerial intervention. The new governors were almost hand-picked. They often brought in the best headteachers to replace failing management teams. They had new buildings. Sponsors had to put in extra cash.”
In an echo of the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) on the Front Bench, David Laws went on to say:
“Our research shows that much of the programme since then has had little impact on standards.”
Another issue that arises from the programme of mass academisation that we have seen in recent years is that the local authority has become the admissions authority in name only. Of course, the net result of that is that some schools end up being over-subscribed, which exacerbates the chaos that we are already getting because an academy-led system means that we get an increasingly lopsided and unstrategic approach, with more and more children being taught out of area because of the way in which schools can set their own admissions policies now.
That has also, I think, led to a rise in the number of children being home-schooled. That figure has risen by more than 40% in the past three years, according to figures obtained by the BBC. That is not about a broken admissions system; it is about schools perhaps suggesting that a particular child could be home-schooled to avoid an exclusion or that the school environment might not be the best place for the child if they have special educational needs. Yes, some parents are just exercising parental choice in home-schooling their children, but surely the rise in the number of academies and the rise in the number of home-schooled children at least needs to be examined to see whether that is something more than a coincidence.
Who is monitoring and evaluating the explosion in home-schooling? Has there been a 40% increase in resources to facilitate such monitoring? Are we confident that the legislation and guidance in this area are as up to date as they need to be? Are we comfortable that so many children are now being educated in that way? Is it a great example of parental choice, or have parents been forced down that route because the school that their children were in, or the system, led them to that place? What efforts are being made to enable children being home-schooled to return to school? What scrutiny is taking place of schools or areas that have higher than average levels of home-schooling? Is any analysis done of variations?
Those are not easy questions to answer, but they should be asked. I fear that because we have a fragmented system, once a child starts to be home-educated, they become someone else’s responsibility. That is the wrong approach. We owe it to all children to ensure that they get the very best education, no matter where they are.
I would like the current landscape in education to be altered so that there is accountability, transparency and a level playing field. At the moment, I suggest, we have none of those things.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) for introducing this subject, because it is one that I have spent quite a considerable amount of my time specialising in within my constituency. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister, who has been incredibly courteous to me over the years, meeting with me and with schools of all sizes so that we can discuss problems. I place on record my sincere thanks to him.
One thing that I have been able to do in specialising in this area is to visit every school in my constituency. I think, from memory, that that is more than 100 schools, which is quite a lot. I have not done that all in one year; I have done it over a number of years, given that we have only Fridays and that the schools are on holiday for quite a lot of the year. But I have done it; I have visited all of them.
I would like to mention one school in particular that fits in with the subject of this debate, the Europa School in Culham in my constituency. Before I describe it, I re-emphasis the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham made about how free schools offer considerable flexibility to reflect a particular way in which parents want their children to be taught. In this case, being a free school offers a particular mindset for how to approach the area, which we should all bear in mind.
The Europa School is the successor to the European School. I am not going to get into a Brexit debate—in fact, I was at a naval dinner last night where, if anyone mentioned the term “Brexit”, they had to drink a large measure of neat rum.
John Howell
While I would love that to be the case here, I suspect it will not occur.
The European School had a distinguished record. It was set up when lots of European parents were over to work at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy at Oxford University and at the Harwell science centre. For several reasons, the European School’s funding dried up, so the Europa School was started as its successor, and has gradually taken over its workings.
The Europa School was set up as a free school, because that is what the parents wanted. They wanted the particular type of education that the European School offered to continue through the free school. That type of education was a way of approaching subjects in original languages. Children did not go and learn in French, Spanish, German or English. They were taught in all those languages, so they could end up having history in German or geography in Spanish, and so on throughout the complete list of subjects. That is a valuable way of teaching. The parents wanted that system to continue in the school, and it is being continued.
To encapsulate that teaching at the end of the process, the parents also wanted the children to take the European baccalaureate, which offers a comprehensive system for evaluating children at roughly the equivalent A-level period that they would have to face. We need to hold fast to that in what I say next.
We must not forget that the school was principally set up to deal with parents of European origin in the area. The approach to teaching languages has proved immensely successful—so successful that we are now in a situation where non-European parents are desperate for their children to enter the school and be taught in that way. Because it is a free school, it can offer that way of teaching and it can say to the parents, “We can take your child in.” To be honest, I think it is a superb way of being taught languages.
The problem comes about because of the European baccalaureate. As I said, the school is desperate to continue teaching it, but there is some difficulty about the ownership of the copyright for it, and a distinction is being made as to whether that is in the gift of the European Commission or the Department. The school has had some interaction with the Department about the issue, which needs to be resolved. It is important because that way of teaching is very special, and people have become not only wedded to it, but so attracted to it that it attracts parents from a wide area. Earlier this year, I presented a petition from something like 2,500 or 3,000 parents and friends of the school in the House of Commons to try to encourage the Government to make sure that the European baccalaureate can continue to be taught there.
There is something special about free schools, particularly in what they can teach and the way in which they can teach it. The Europa School illustrates that above all, which is why I have spent the last few minutes telling hon. Members about it. It is a good example of how free schools work, how they can take the attitudes of parents and make them a reality, and how they can, in this case, through the European baccalaureate, continue to offer something of enormous benefit to children. I think the Minister agrees that there is no issue of quality about the European baccalaureate; it provides just the same quality that children would get if they were taking traditional A-levels. For that reason, I fully support the school.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on securing this important debate. His past role means that he must understand the numbers.
As I have said, we should celebrate the success of all our schools, regardless of where they come from. Even in those that are not doing so well, perhaps we have something to celebrate as they strive to deliver for our children. One school in my constituency that has not gone down the academy route is the Northfield School in Billingham. I was delighted to join it when it achieved the Artsmark a few weeks ago. The school band and choir were waiting for me as I arrived and it was a tremendous pleasure to be at that extremely successful school.
I also talked about the Labour Government’s legacy. I appreciate that the coalition Government and the two Conservative Governments since have built on the Blair legacy, which saw schools funding brought up to realistic levels by more than doubling it in Budgets during that time. That was when we saw the increase in the number of teaching assistants in schools and in resources, and a capital programme that I do not think has quite been equalled yet by the Government. That considerable programme has made a huge difference to the education of young people in our communities.
There is success, but there are places where success does not yet exist. We have to put a great emphasis on everybody who is succeeding, but we need to put an even greater emphasis on those who are not. The first two academies in the Stockton-on-Tees borough were the North Shore Academy and the Thornaby Academy. Both schools have tended to bump along the bottom. That said, the North Shore Academy is now showing real progress, which I celebrate. It has relatively low numbers, however, so budgets are a major issue, particularly since the Government introduced their fair funding programme that saw funding move from schools in the north with considerable special needs to those elsewhere in the country.
I referred to the Thornaby Academy when I talked about support for failing academies and the bizarre proposal from the regional schools commissioner at one point that a failing academies chain should come in and work alongside it. It is still waiting for a partner to help improve it, but because of its falling numbers, its budgets are extremely limited, so it struggles considerably—so much, in fact, that the local authority is contemplating subsidising it and putting resources into it to ensure that it can survive a little longer. So what we need to know from the Minister is how we will get schools such as these achieving to the levels that we have been celebrating earlier today.
In an intervention, I talked a little about exclusions. There was even a television programme on exclusions last night. I only have second-hand information about it because, of course, I was one of the many people who were here very late last night. That programme looked at what happens in some schools where children are put into a room called the “ready to learn room”, so they are excluded and taken out of the classroom. I understand why children need to be removed from classrooms at times; it is because they are disruptive to others. However, those children also need support—real support—and putting them in a room and isolating them is not necessarily the right idea.
At least one school in the Stockton borough puts children into pods, so that they are sitting in a little box and facing a blank wall, when they are supposed to be getting on with work. Yet those children are the ones who are possibly—indeed probably—the most likely to be excluded. And when they are excluded permanently, they end up back in the arms of the local authority, even though local authorities have been stripped of resources and do not really have the ability to support young people in the way they would like to.
Within the Stockton borough—it is probably the same across the country—one of the greatest pressures on funding is the pressure on high-needs funding. Stockton experienced a £2.5 million overspend in that funding in the past financial year and it is projecting that it will have a similar overspend in 2018-19. That is because it has to support the youngsters who are excluded from academies, while also doing other work; I appreciate that. Nevertheless, it has to support those children.
The council’s view is that there is just insufficient high-needs funding in the system. It continues to lobby for an increased funding deal and I am sure the Minister realises that that is what I am doing to him now: I am actually lobbying him directly for more high-needs funding for children, not only in the Stockton borough but across the country.
Of course, in the absence of additional funding from central Government, the local authority is taking action to reduce costs in all sorts of areas, to live within the funding envelope that is available to it, but that is simply proving more and more difficult every single year.
The local schools forum agreed at its meeting on 27 November to submit a request to the Secretary of State to transfer £1.4 million of the schools block to the high-needs budget. I hope the Minister will consider that very carefully, in order to give these schools the leg-up that they need. It was not an easy decision for the forum to take, because schools are really concerned about the lack of funding in the whole system. Some areas, such as ours, have actually suffered because of some of the fair funding decisions and, of course, because of the number of pupils going into particular schools. I would very much welcome the Minister’s view on that issue, but what is he going to do specifically about high-needs funding in the longer term?
Yes, let us celebrate success. I love celebrating success; I just love going into our schools. The atmosphere is tremendous and there is no doubt that generally children are very happy in school, and happy children learn much more quickly than those who are unhappy.
So we really need to think about where the support services are. We know about special educational needs and we know that certain children need particular support, and yet special needs budgets are being squeezed in these years and we really need to do more to support those budgets, so that those children can get the support they need, become happy children and learn.
I will continue to celebrate successes, but I just hope that the Minister will recognise that although we generally have a very successful schools system in this country, there are many, many children—hundreds of thousands of children—who are still being failed because we do not have the recipe right. We need to get that recipe right as soon as possible.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
As ever, Mr Davies, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) on securing this important debate. It is a debate without many Members; the House sat very late last night with the Brexit deliberations. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman went to Dr Challoner’s Grammar School. Its motto is “Ad Astra Per Aspera”, which means, “We look to the stars through difficulties”. That might be good advice for the current Government, as they navigate or steer the ship through the Brexit waters. However, other Labour Members will agree that, as things currently stand, the Government are steering using celestial navigation on a cloudy night. Anyway, there are not too many Members here in Westminster Hall today, because so many were in the House last night.
The reality of the current school system is that it is broken, and that it has been fragmented beyond repair. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who threw the system up, broke it and then saw how it would coalesce together. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to see us go up in the PISA standings—the programme for international student assessment standings—in terms of standards. We know that has not happened; because of the reforms, that just has not worked at all. Also, the system is in parts unfair and unaccountable, as has been said, and in most places it is not being led by the needs of local communities.
I did a simple Google search on academies and schools today, just to see what would come up. Day in and day out, we see some of the problems that the system is faced with today. Amanda Spielman, the chief inspector of Ofsted, has said that it is a “halfway-house” and “inadequate”, and that it does not have enough capacity. There are not enough teachers and leadership in the system, and schools are being left in limbo for far too long, which is a point I will come on to in just a moment. In fact, one school has been left in limbo—without a sponsor—for seven years. That was the result of the first part of my Google search.
Greg Hands
May I take it from what the shadow Minister is saying that he endorses his boss’s proposal, which is immediately to end the Tories’ academy and free school programme? Can he confirm that today?
Mike Kane
I will come on to say what our programme is. We will see new schools and new academies, but we will bring them in where they are accountable to local people, where proper spatial planning is done, and where numbers are consistent with the school places being brought forward. At the moment there is no accountability; I will explain that later in my speech.
Greg Hands
In the hon. Gentleman’s policy, the future of those free schools and academies will be accountable to local people. How will that differ from existing county schools?
Mike Kane
Currently, we have a system that is unaccountable. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) had to raise issues of pedagogical knowledge and how a school teaches, directly with the Minister. We cannot run 22,000 schools in England and Wales from Whitehall; nobody expects that. So the system will be local and accountable when Labour comes to power. That is what parents want. We have seen parents being cut out of academies and coming off governing bodies across our land; we want parents driving the policies of our local schools with local elected authorities.
Secondly, if someone does a simple Google search, they will find that the Department for Education itself has recently named and shamed 88 academies and trusts for failing to publish their financial returns.
The third thing that came out of my Google search today is that currently the academies—I emphasise that this has just been reported today—have a £6.1 billion deficit within the system. What is going on with the accountability and financing of this programme?
Finally, I will say one more thing on this issue. The Conservatives have hugely lauded individual schools and some headteachers who have followed the programme in this instance. Now, however, one of the Tories’ lauded headteachers in Birmingham—I will not name them here today—has been banned from teaching indefinitely because of poor standards in the school they run.
So, the system is broken and fragmented. When there are 124 failing schools left stranded outside the system, waiting to be transferred to another chain or sponsor, something is wrong; my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) talked about this issue very articulately. Indeed, there are authorities that are willing to participate but they have been cut out of the system, including authorities with some great expertise—not just Labour authorities, but Conservative-controlled authorities, too. That does not chime with what lots of Conservative councillors say should be the policy up and down the country.
The right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham talked about faith. What would happen if it was not for the Church of England, which is a broker to so many thousands of schools, especially in rural areas? It is a different situation for those of us who represent cities. We have no trouble in cities in finding academy sponsors, but in rural and suburban areas schools have trouble in that respect.
Alex Cunningham
As I have said, we have struggled to find a partner for one school in the borough. I extend to my hon. Friend my invitation to the Minister to come to Stockton, because that is an authority where academies and the local authority work very closely together, which can only be to pupils’ benefit.
Mike Kane
If my hon. Friend is inviting me to Stockton, I would be delighted to come to the north-east. The reality is that most academies worth their salt co-operate with their local or sub-regional authorities, because they want to co-operate. In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, parents chose not to send their children to some schools in London because of some of the horrendous things that were going on. It was not market competition that changed that; it was co-operation through the London Challenge. The Labour Government put money into failing schools, bringing the best pedagogy and the best teachers together through a co-operative system, and raising standards so that 50% of all children in London who are on the pupil premium now get at least five good GCSEs. That is what we did in London. If a line is drawn through the north of England from the Humber estuary to the Mersey estuary, through my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), it shows that number drops to about 34%. We know what works: it was being rolled out across the country in 2010, and then austerity put an end to it.
I was making a point about the Church of England. The right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham talked about whether we have faith—the substance of things hoped for over the evidence of things seen. That is certainly Government education policy as it currently stands. I am not of the view that academies are bad, that free schools are bad or that we need to sweep a broom through the entire system: Labour’s reform proposals will not mean a single school closing, and will not mean any schools that are currently in the pipeline being cancelled. However, for far too long, parents and local communities have been shut out of decisions affecting the schools in their area. The Minister needs to give power back to communities, so that our schools are run by the people who know them best—parents, teachers and those local communities.
Greg Hands
The hon. Gentleman has given himself an opportunity to clarify his policy proposals. It sounds like the schools will carry on, but they will no longer be free schools; they will be wholly under local authority control. Can he confirm that—yes or no?
Mike Kane
No, they will not be wholly under local authority control. Local and sub-regional authorities will have a say in our schools. They already have a say on spatial planning—that is, where places are needed. Local authorities work best where they co-operate with schools, and that will happen again. Local authorities, though, should be given the power to take on schools when no other sponsor can be found. What is the ideological obsession with not allowing that to happen? As I have said, there are currently 124 unbrokered schools, containing 700,000 children. Giving that power to local authorities would ensure that no school is left without the support of a sponsor to deliver school improvement services and provide it with a network of schools. How many schools are currently awaiting a sponsor, and of those, what is the longest time a school has had to wait to get a new sponsor in place?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, as did I when I intervened on the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham, the Education Policy Institute—whose executive chairman was formerly a Minister in the coalition Government—has confirmed yet again that there is
“little difference in the performance of schools in academy chains and local authorities.”
There is no evidence of that difference. The evidence that the right hon. Gentleman cited was that there are more pupils in our school system. That is what the Government have been getting away with when trying to explain that standards have gone up—standards in schools that have not been inspected by Ofsted for over a decade. We also know that Ofsted’s only data measures affluence and deprivation, rather than the quality of teaching and learning. What matters is that schools are able to connect with a group of schools that have high performance, which is what the London Challenge did. As there is no evidence that converting a school to an academy will improve outcomes for pupils, will the Minister commit to ending the policy of automatic conversions for schools that receive Ofsted ratings of “inadequate”? It does not happen the other way around.
It is not just sponsorship that is a challenge for our academies and schools. When 91% of schools are facing real-terms cuts to their budgets, we cannot allow to go unchallenged a system that permits the education of children to become a vehicle for private profit, and that allows the rewarding of huge executive salaries—an £850,000 payoff in one case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said—and has resulted in mounting scandals and evidence of financial mismanagement. As I stated at the beginning of my speech, one Google search produced that evidence. There has been scandal on top of scandal, and yet the response from those on the Government Benches has been to do nothing. If the Minister is serious about financial transparency about spending in academies and free schools, will he agree to ban any related party transaction where a profit is being made, regardless of the kind of school involved in that agreement? Furthermore, when will the Minister take much-needed and called-for action and open an independent investigation into the regulation of academies?
Alongside concerns about academy chains siphoning off funding for the school system, there are also concerns about the actual number of academy schools that are in financial deficit. Currently, the Department for Education data looks at the financial status of overall academy trusts, rather than individual schools within those trusts. That means that if an individual school is in deficit but the trust to which it belongs is in surplus, the individual school is also deemed to be in surplus, in effect masking the real number of schools in deficit. Will the Minister provide clarity on the actual number of academy schools that are in financial deficit? If the Minister does not have that figure, will he outline what steps he is taking to ensure that the Department has a true understanding of the financial stability of all schools? Will he also outline what the implication of that lack of financial clarity in academy schools is for the implementation of the national funding formula?
We have academies without sponsors, academies siphoning off funding, and academies in financial deficit. Surely, there cannot be any further problems with our academy and free school system. Unfortunately, there are: we are in the unbelievable situation that in some areas of the country, this Government are allowing the over-supply of school places while in others there is an under-supply. The 1 million school places much lauded by the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham are, I am afraid, more smoke and mirrors from this Government. Recent Local Government Association analysis of Government figures shows that by 2023-24, 71 English councils—52%—may not be able to meet the need for 134,000 secondary school places.
Greg Hands
Surely, by that token, the hon. Gentleman will condemn Hammersmith and Fulham Council because it is absolutely bottom of that table when it comes to the projected deficit of secondary school places.
Mike Kane
We in the Opposition will have no lectures about how Kensington and Chelsea Council has comported itself over the past year or two. Two major incidents happened in this country last year: one was the Grenfell Tower fire, and the other was the Manchester Arena bomb at the Ariana Grande concert. Look at how those two authorities responded to those two major tragic incidents: one was condemned, one was praised.
Councils are facing an emergency in secondary school places, with the number of pupils growing at a faster rate than places are becoming available, yet those best placed to solve this crisis—the councils themselves—have been shut out of the system, with no powers to open schools, even though they are having to deal with the fall-out. That has resulted in the perverse situation of academies and free schools opening in areas with little or no demand for places. I remember the school that opened in Bermondsey, costing £2 million, even though the council begged it not to build a school there. It attracted 60 pupils over two years before it shut. We could have sent those children to Eton for half the price.
The reality is that our current school system is broken. It has been fragmented beyond repair. In parts, it is unfair and unaccountable and not being led by the needs of local people. In the debate, we have exposed a system that allows schools to be left in limbo without support, that lacks financial transparency and accountability, and that does not respond to or reflect the needs of local communities in most places. While those on the Government Benches appear to have no plan in place to address the challenges, Labour has a clear vision with a national education service at its heart. It would create a future system where all schools have a vested interest in the local community and not private corporations.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. My career has come to a point where I am now serving under people who I entered Parliament with in 1997, such is the level of seniority that they have reached.
Nick Gibb
Indeed. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) on securing the debate and on his passion and commitment to ensuring that pupils in his constituency fulfil their potential through high-quality schools and education. Thirteen academies and free schools have opened in Chelsea and Fulham since 2010, and I congratulate the teachers, headteachers and all the staff who have dedicated their time to ensuring their success. That includes those who have been involved in establishing Fulham Boys School, of which my right hon. Friend is a patron.
My right hon. Friend talked about a number of free schools. He mentioned Kensington Aldridge Academy, where the excellent headteacher, David Benson, has pushed up academic standards and stewarded it and its pupils through the tragedy of Grenfell Tower. That included a year in temporary accommodation for some pupils and a successful return. My right hon. Friend also mentioned West London Free School, where the headteacher, Clare Wagner, is doing an excellent job with very high academic standards. Watching this debate is Mark Lehain, who established Bedford Free School and was one of the first pioneering headteachers. It has been a hugely successful programme and my right hon. Friend is right to point out its successes.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) needs to be a bit more rigorous in his research than simply clicking through Google. For example, school academies’ accumulated surpluses amount to something like £4 billion. Excluding fixed assets and pension liabilities, the sector’s net assets have increased by £0.2 billion, from £2.6 billion in 2016 to £2.8 billion in 2017. He also referred to accountability. The whole essence of the free schools and academies programme is based on evidence from the OECD that shows that high- performing education systems around the world have two things in common: professional autonomy, combined with very strong accountability. The accountability system for our academies is stronger than it has ever been.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East also raised specific issues about related party transactions, and I want to address that. We have changed those arrangements so that from April next year those transactions will be transparent and receive more oversight. Academy trusts will be required to declare all related party transactions to the Education and Skills Funding Agency in advance and seek its approval for those that exceed £20,000 either individually or cumulatively. He has said in other debates in the Commons that there have been more than 100 closures of free schools. Again, I am afraid that his facts are wrong. As of 1 November this year, 13 free schools have closed since the beginning of the programme. In addition, seven new university technical colleges and 21 studio schools have closed. In total, that amounts to 41 free schools, UTCs and studio schools closing since the programme began, not the number he cites.
Nick Gibb
Those schools have not closed; they have been re-brokered very successfully to others. The essence of the free schools and academies programme is that we do not allow schools to languish in special measures year after year, which in essence is what was happening when those schools were under local authority control. We take very swift action where schools underperform, and we will not change the law that requires schools to become academies once they go into special measures, because that is how we get improvement. I will come on to some of the examples of how that works in due course.
Every child in this country, regardless of where they live or their background, should have the opportunity to benefit from the very best education. Free schools and academies have shown that professional autonomy in the hands of able headteachers and teachers can deliver a world-class education. For example, Dixons Trinity Academy, a free school in Bradford, achieved extraordinary results in 2017. Its first set of GCSEs placed it among the top schools in England for the progress achieved by its pupils. Strikingly, the progress score for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds was higher than that for the whole school, including more affluent peers. That school and many others show that socioeconomic background should not and need not be a barrier to academic success.
Leading multi-academy trusts, often led by inspirational headteachers, demonstrate that excellence need not be restricted to isolated schools. Thanks to a forensic approach to curriculum design and the implementation of evidence-based approaches to managing behaviour, the Inspiration Trust in Norfolk and the Harris Federation in London—two of the best performing multi-academy trusts—have conclusively demonstrated that all pupils can achieve whether they live in coastal Norfolk or inner-city London.
Alex Cunningham
It is good to hear the Minister continue to celebrate the success of our schools, but I still wonder about those that are not quite so successful and the support services they require. In the past week Ofsted has delivered a damning indictment of the education of those with special educational needs, describing the service as “disjointed and inconsistent”. The Guardian reported that the annual report of Amanda Spielman
“drew attention to the plight of pupils with SEND, warning that diagnoses were taking too long, were often inaccurate, and mental health needs were not supported sufficiently.”
Surely those are things that Ministers should be attending to, rather than just celebrating the successes.
Nick Gibb
We are attending to all those issues. As a Government, we take mental health issues extremely seriously. That is why earlier this year we published the Green Paper on young people’s mental health, which will transform the quality of mental health support at every level in our school system across the country. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of high needs funding, which we take very seriously. High needs funding has increased from £5 billion in 2013 to £6 billion this year, but we are aware of increasing cost pressures on the high needs budget, and we are aware of the causes. We have listened carefully to his lobbying today, and to that of other colleagues and schools that have raised those issues. We take those concerns extremely seriously.
The whole essence of the free schools and academies programme is to empower teachers and headteachers and to promote the importance of innovation and evidence. Power is wrestled away from the old authorities. Ideas are weighed and, if they are found wanting, can be discarded. There has been a resurgence—a renaissance —of intellectual thought and debate about pedagogy and the curriculum that used to be vested only within the secret garden of the universities. Now it is debated rigorously by thousands of teachers across the country.
Free schools have challenged the status quo and initiated wider improvement, injecting fresh approaches and drawing in talent and expertise from different groups. There are now 442 open free schools, which will provide more than 250,000 school places when at full capacity. We are working with groups to establish a further 265 free schools. In answer to Alun Ebenezer, the headteacher who runs an excellent school in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, the free school programme is thriving.
Thanks to powers granted by the Government and the expansion of the academies and free schools programmes, teachers and headteachers now enjoy far greater control over the destiny of their school. Decision making has been truly localised and professionalised. These extraordinary schools are changing what is thought to be possible and raising expectations across the country. They are an example to any school seeking to improve. Whether we look at Reach Academy in Feltham, Dixons Academy in Bradford or Harris Academy Battersea—all with high pupil progress scores—we see that there are some obvious similarities.
All of the schools that I have mentioned teach a stretching, knowledge-rich curriculum. Each has a strong approach to behaviour management so that teachers can teach uninterrupted, and they all serve disadvantaged communities, demonstrating that high academic and behavioural standards are not and must not be the preserve of wealthy pupils in independent schools. Indeed, Harris Westminster, a free school that opened in 2014, which has close ties to Westminster School and draws pupils from across London, has reported that, with 40% of its pupils from a disadvantaged background, 18 pupils went to Oxbridge last year.
All around the country the Government have built the foundations of an education system through which teachers and headteachers control the levers over school improvement and parents exercise choice, shifting decision making from local education authorities and handing it to local communities and the teaching profession. With an intelligent accountability system to maintain high standards, innovative schools collaborate and compete with one another to improve teaching, the quality of their curricula and retention of staff.
Two thirds of academies are converter academies, and many have become system leaders within multi-academy trusts by helping other schools to improve. More than 550,000 pupils now study in sponsored academies that are rated good or outstanding. Those academies often replaced previously underperforming schools, so when the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East says that he wishes to disband or end the autonomy that comes with the academies and free schools programme, he is saying that he would not have enabled the 550,000 pupils who were languishing in underperforming schools to be given the opportunity to be taught in much higher performing schools, thus taking away opportunities as an enemy of promise and social mobility.
As at August 2018, 89% of converter academies were rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. Results in primary sponsored academies continue to improve. The percentage of pupils reaching the expected standard in reading, writing and maths in current sponsored academies was 42% in 2016, and in 2018 it was 57%. Academies and free schools are driving up standards all over the country. Queen’s Park Junior School in Bournemouth was placed in special measures in May 2011. In the same year only 50% of pupils achieved level 4 or above in reading, writing and maths, compared with the national average of 67%. In September 2011 Ambitions Academies Trust started working with the school, and in October 2012 Queen’s Park Academy became part of Ambitions Academies Trust as a sponsored academy. Queen’s Park Academy was judged outstanding in all areas by Ofsted in June 2014 and is now providing support for other schools in the trust. In 2017 the school’s writing and maths progress scores were both above average, at +2.3 and +1.4, and 78% of pupils achieved the expected standard in reading, writing and maths.
WISE Academies in the north-east of England has taken on nine sponsored academies since 2012. The trust is making the most of its autonomy—the autonomy that the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East wants to remove—and has reduced teacher workload through efficient lesson planning and by sharing resources. It is innovative in how it teaches, embedding maths mastery techniques from Singapore into its maths curriculum. As a result, every school that has been inspected since joining the trust has been judged to be either good or outstanding.
Free schools are among the highest performing state-funded schools in the country, with pupils at the end of key stage 4 having made more progress on average than pupils in other types of state-funded schools. In 2018 four of the top provisional Progress 8 scores for state-funded schools in England were achieved by free schools.
Greg Hands
I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent exposition of the success and brilliance of so many of our free schools. I do not expect him to make a policy pronouncement today, but will he take on board some of the comments I made in relation to ESFA and the complaints I have heard from various parent groups trying to set up free schools—some successful and some unsuccessful—particularly in an area such as mine where the crucial question is always about the ability to secure the site and, in their view, the bureaucratic approach taken to site selection and delivering financing?
Nick Gibb
Yes. My right hon. Friend anticipates the point I was coming to. As he knows, the Fulham Boys School is currently in temporary accommodation and the Department is working hard to ensure that a permanent site will be ready as soon as possible. All parties are working to deliver the site as early as can be achieved, but it remains, as he knows, a complex project. I am aware of people’s concerns about the site. It is a difficult challenge to find a site, particularly in London, but we have more than 400 free schools being established. With any large projects we will find delays and problems, but they are achieved, which is why we have more than 400 successfully opened free schools.
As I was saying, in 2018 our top 10 provisional Progress 8 scores for state-funded schools in England were achieved by free schools, by people who persevered through all the problems of finding a site and getting a school opened. For example, William Perkin Church of England High School in Ealing, Dixons Trinity Academy in Bradford, Eden Girls’ School in Coventry and Tauheedul Islam Boys’ High School in Blackburn are in that top 10. The latter two were opened by Star Academies, which has grown through the free schools programme, from running a single school in the north-west to running 24 schools across the country, made up of nine academies and 15 free schools, and it has approval to open two additional free schools. Of the 10 that have had Ofsted inspections since opening or joining the trust, all have been rated outstanding. That is the kind of programme that the Labour party wants to stop happening in future, denying young people the opportunity of having an excellent education, but the approach works. The free schools and academies programme demonstrates, as I have cited, the benefits of strong trusts and strong collaboration.
Converting to an academy is a positive choice made by hundreds of schools every year, to give highly able teachers the power to make their own decisions; the breathing room to be creative and innovative; and the freedom to drive improvements, based on what they know works for their pupils. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) cited the example of the Europa School that converted from the independent European School into a free school. We were very pleased to authorise that new free school to teach the European baccalaureate rather than A-levels and GCSEs. Wary of the risk of being made to drink a shot of rum, I will say that the future of that qualification will depend on discussions with the European Schools system post-Brexit.
We want to go further to make sure that no one is left behind. We want to extend the free schools programme to areas of the country that have not previously benefited from it.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point about extending the programme to other areas. My impression is that the vast majority of free schools tend to be opened in the more leafy areas where there is less deprivation. What evidence does he have—perhaps he could write to me—about the number of free schools opened in areas of high deprivation and how they are achieving great things?
Nick Gibb
Some 50% of free schools have been opened in areas of deprivation. There has been a determination to ensure that free schools are opened in areas of disadvantage that have been poorly served by the schools system in the past. I will be happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier invitation to visit schools in his constituency to see at first hand how they use the programme’s autonomy and freedoms to raise standards.
Earlier this year we launched the 13th wave of free schools, targeting the areas of the country with the lowest standards and the lowest capacity to improve. Those are the places where opening a free school can have the greatest impact on improving outcomes. The application window for wave 13 closed on 5 November. We received 124 applications from both new providers and experienced multi-academy trusts. We are assessing the proposals and will announce successful applications in the spring. We will launch the 14th wave of free schools shortly, demonstrating again to Mr Ebenezer and others that the free school programme continues to thrive, albeit with one threat on the horizon: the Labour party is committed to ending the programme.
This summer we launched a special and alternative provision free schools wave. By the deadline in October we had received 65 bids from local authorities, setting out their case for why a new special or AP free school would benefit their area. In the new year we will launch a competition to select trusts in the areas with the strongest case for a new school. We are also continuing to accept proposals for maths schools from some of our best universities, having already seen excellent results reported by both existing maths schools, Exeter Mathematics School and King’s College London Mathematics School. Those schools have exemplary A-level results in maths, physics and further maths.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham for the support that he has given to the free schools programme. Some important points have been raised, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss a central part of our education policy and to share some examples of the excellent work in academies and free schools throughout the country. Since 2010 our education reform programme has brought new levels of autonomy and freedom for schools, with clearer and stronger accountability. There are many examples of academies, and the multi-academy trust model, bringing about rapid and effective improvement in previously underperforming schools.
Since 2010 we have been unflinching in our determination to drive up academic standards in all our schools, and to drive out underperformance in our school system. Our ambition is for every local school to be a good school, to close the attainment gap between pupils from different backgrounds, and to ensure that every pupil, regardless of their background or where they live, can fulfil their potential.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
I invite Greg Hands to wind up the debate briefly.
Greg Hands
Thank you, Mr Davies. I will try to fill the remaining eight and a half minutes.
Greg Hands
That is helpful advice—it has been a little while since I have done one of these debates. However, as the time is available, I might say a few things.
This has been an excellent debate. I am delighted that the academies and free schools programmes are thriving and making such a difference to school standards across the country. As the Opposition spokesman pointed out, I had the pleasure and privilege of going to one of the best state schools in the country: Dr Challoner’s Grammar School in Amersham. That stood me in good stead for everything that came after. I have always been a strong believer in high-quality state education, which is what the Government have delivered over the past eight and a half years, and will continue to deliver.
As I said, the very centre of this movement is my constituency, and the two boroughs that my constituency forms part of: Hammersmith and Fulham, and Kensington and Chelsea. In those boroughs, 13 new free schools and academies have opened. It is an incredible achievement to open five new secondary schools, and eight additional primary schools, in the two smallest boroughs in London.
Often such things are very difficult. I remember when West London Free School opened in 2011 or 2012—it must have been almost the first free school. I remember speaking to the then leader of the council, the excellent Stephen Greenhalgh, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and the founder of the school. We talked about how we were going to make it possible, and it was quite hard, because people wishing to set up such a school face a number of obstacles. The sites can be very difficult. Most of those people are incredibly dedicated to seeing the schools delivered. I take a strong interest in how the Education and Skills Funding Agency works, and how such things might be improved. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to look at a continuing review of how that is done.
We have a crisis in our schools coming up locally, despite all the achievements. I mentioned the shortage of places in Hammersmith and Fulham. The current Labour council has sat on its hands for the past four and a half years and done nothing about it. After all the achievement in the preceding four years of the Conservative Government, combined with the Conservative council, in delivering all those new schools, nothing has been delivered in the past four years. The area will be short by 327 places. Reform has come to a shuddering halt.
My constituents will also be alarmed by what has been said by the Labour party. The Opposition spokesman today failed to repudiate what the shadow Secretary of State for Education said at the Labour party conference. She said:
“We’ll start by immediately ending the Tories’ academy and free schools programmes.”
I think the Opposition spokesman said, if I understood him correctly, that that would not mean the closure of the schools. However, they would be taken immediately back into—or put under for the first time—local authority control. That would be the abolition of free schools and academies in the way in which they currently operate, ending their autonomy. That will ring alarm bells in my constituency among so many parents whose children are currently at those schools, and among all the parent groups that come to see me to talk about establishing new schools.
There is an incredible diversity in education in my constituency. We have had amazing bilingual Anglo-French schools set up—feeders into the incredible Lycée Français Charles de Gaulle. Some new parent groups want to set up bilingual Spanish schools. I expect that at some point all these groups will come to me and say, “We are alarmed, Mr Hands, by what we hear is the policy of the Labour party—threatening the future of these schools before they have even been established.” I invite the Labour party to review and reconsider its policy, because it will be incredibly unpopular, and is incredibly unpopular in my part of London.
Some of the schools have an incredible record, and an incredibly diverse intake. Fulham Boys School, for example, is very proud of the fact that 40% of its children qualify for the pupil premium, while 15% come to it from a private school background. In a community such as mine, where there is not much in the middle, that school takes the full spectrum of pupils. At Ark Burlington Danes Academy in Shepherd’s Bush, nearly half the pupils are eligible for free school meals. Often such intakes are from the more deprived parts of the two boroughs, in the north, and most of those schools do a fantastic and brilliant job.
It would be a great shame to see that future threatened by a future Government. However, of course, as we all know, there is not going to be a future Labour Government coming up. I can tell parents that they can at least rest assured on that front. Nevertheless, it is a cause of concern in my constituency, and I hope that the Labour shadow team will reconsider their ideological approach to ending the programme, and reconsider what is in the best interests of parents and pupils at those schools, and future schools to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of free schools and academies in England.
Southend Hospital
(6 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered services at Southend hospital.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I very much welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his new post in the Department of Health and Social Care. I was on the Select Committee on Health for 10 years, which was probably too long, but during that time—I am bragging a bit—I initiated the debate on obesity, which some people now think they are discovering for the first time. We also dealt with the smoking ban, which I never thought would work, and with passive smoking, allergies and a whole raft of other issues.
I have to say that it is a long time since I heard anything original said about the health service. I have been all around the world and all over the country looking at facilities, and I am left with the conclusion, which I know the House shares, that our national health service is the best in the world. It is the only really nationalised health service that exists. The differences between the two political parties may be a bit blurred, but if it is down to funding, good luck with that issue—the money has to come from somewhere.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) is here to support me. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) may not be here at the moment, but I feel that they are somehow here in spirit, because the four of us use the facilities at Southend Hospital.
I must take the opportunity to praise the staff at Southend Hospital, who I know only too well are overworked and underpaid. It is a difficult political issue to deal with, but they are so dedicated and they provide an absolutely excellent service. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East and I, and our families, have benefited from care at the hospital. We were so privileged to be at the Hospital Heroes awards ceremony in September, which celebrated the very best of Southend’s healthcare staff and those who go the extra mile for their patients. I congratulate all the winners and nominees and thank them for their dedication, compassion and considerable expertise.
I also praise the volunteers among my Southend West constituents, who give up their time, unpaid, to support the hospital’s work and help others. Those women and men are there day in, day out and week in, week out, giving a little extra help and support to people going into hospital, many of whom are somewhat concerned and stressed about what lies ahead. From befrienders to hospital gardeners to the library service, they should be commended for their invaluable contribution on behalf of patients across Southend.
Southend Hospital and healthcare services throughout Southend are at a crossroads. It could be argued that their future is uncertain. The Minister will be only too well aware of the mid and south Essex sustainability and transformation partnership plan for the reconfiguration of specialist services across hospitals in Essex. I must tell him that I will not support any changes to those services unless they are led by clinicians, not by politicians. It is up to the clinicians to put their heads above the parapet and argue the case for change.
The plans have been referred to the Secretary of State for review. I will not go into the whys and wherefores of what happened, but we have a Conservative-controlled local authority in Southend and I think the Conservatives were particularly concerned about changes to the stroke service, which is under the excellent leadership of Dr Guyler. I am not sure why all the plans have had to be reviewed. If the Minister cannot answer now, perhaps he could write to me to confirm whether there is a possibility, however vague, that we might lose funding as a result of the delay or that the funding we were promised might arrive less quickly. [Interruption.] Does he wish to intervene?
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
No, no—I was just listening very carefully to my hon. Friend’s speech.
Sir David Amess
Right. Well, there seem to be rumours that, as a result of the plans being referred, there is a real danger that the extra money that we were promised might not materialise or that there could be repercussions for the services at Southend Hospital. I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to comment on that issue at the moment, but in this short debate I hope to set out some of my constituents’ concerns, and my own, about how best to support the world-class services at Southend Hospital and ensure that everyone in all four constituencies receives the best possible care.
Southend has always been absolutely at the top of cancer services generally. I will not delay the House by listing all the organisations that have had a hand in delivering cancer services there, but Southend has always been very highly regarded. From its gynaecology training coming top in the UK and its trauma and orthopaedic team being named training hospital of the year, to its world-leading practice standards for cancer care, Southend Hospital has lots to celebrate about its services and patient care. The radiotherapy department deserves particular mention in the light of its recent CHKS accreditation for its pioneering radiation treatment, as well as its high ratings from the Care Quality Commission. The centre has led the way in utilising highly focused and concentrated radiation treatment on tumours that reduces harm to surrounding organs. It has treated more than 1,700 patients this year and is a great example of the importance of investment in driving world-leading research and developing innovative treatments.
This is where the sting comes in. NHS figures show that 36% of Southend cancer patients wait eight weeks for treatment after their initial GP referral. The Minister may have an answer to this, but more than a third seems somewhat high—more than twice the national NHS target. It is vital that more be done to speed up referrals and avoid such unacceptable delays in treatment, which can cause so much worry for patients. With world-class care on their doorstep, our constituents deserve nothing less than fast access to the treatments that they most need. I would welcome any comments from the Minister about speeding up the process.
Southend Hospital is currently trialling a mobile stroke ambulance unit—a pioneering and innovative treatment service that allows specialists to travel directly to patients and treat them en route to the hospital. Data is still being analysed, but clinicians have reported great successes, with specialists being able to deliver life-saving thrombolysis treatment just 16 minutes after the patient alert. That is absolutely incredible. We all know that the sooner a stroke is treated, the more likely a good outcome. Treatment in the first few minutes can make all the difference, so getting patients to a specialist as quickly as possible is imperative. Not only have patient outcomes been improved, but the unit has shown great potential to alleviate pressure on A&E departments. Some 88% of patients in the trial were admitted directly to a specialist stroke unit, freeing up resources across the NHS.
The trial is due to end on 19 December, but so far there has been no confirmation that this pioneering service, which has been funded entirely by charitable donations, will continue. I believe that greater support is needed to ensure that the hospital can retain the mobile unit. More than 100,000 strokes occur each year in the UK, so it is essential for the NHS to use such innovative services to ensure that we can deliver the best care to patients in the shortest time. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford is particularly interested in stroke care and in how it is delivered at Southend Hospital. I encourage the Minister to review the successes of the trial at Southend and to look into how such life-saving services can be offered to patients across the United Kingdom.
The critical issue of time in stroke care is a great concern for Southend. I appreciate that the Minister will be unable to comment on the STP’s proposed centralisation of stroke services in the constituency that I once represented—Basildon. However, maintaining the established stroke service infrastructure and keeping Southend as a centre of excellence is very important. Whatever the outcomes of reconfiguration, my constituents do not want to see the downgrading of the world-class stroke services in Southend, and patients put at risk.
There is a big issue about transport services, which I know is of great concern to my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend East and for Castle Point, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. While Southend Hospital is leading the way in many areas of care, transfer to specialist services is obviously important. Patients are currently transported to acute services across Essex through the treat-and- transfer model. Although that is working in ensuring that patients get access to the specialist treatment they need, a big concern for our constituents is the impact that an expansion to the model could have. Inter-hospital transfers affect not only the patient, but their carers or families. The costs incurred and difficulties experienced by patients and visitors travelling across services need to be taken into careful consideration. It is essential that the local transport services, whether public transport or community transport organisations, can provide the right support to patients and their families.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said about the mobile stroke unit. I encourage the Minister to look at the great success that it has been. As my hon. Friend knows, I have particularly focused on the transport issues. The East of England Ambulance Service, which would be the logical service to provide that transfer, is under great pressure as it is. Does my hon. Friend accept that if the whole of the STP is to stand up and be coherent, we must have clearer answers about exactly how the transfer of critically ill patients from one hospital to another would work in practice?
Sir David Amess
As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right; he is intuitive. We need greater clarity on this matter, and our constituents want reassurance and certainty.
I have outlined some of the successes of Southend Hospital, as well as the areas in which greater support and investment are needed. The hospital serves just under 340,000 people and, although challenged by the pressures on the system, has managed to lead the way in world-class care. Southend is becoming a hub of medical education and training, with both the gynaecology and trauma teams recognised as among the best in the country. Pioneering cancer and stroke care at the hospital is at the forefront of treatment innovation, but those excellent services cannot continue at such a standard without investment and support. I hope that the Minister will closely consider our constituents’ concerns, and I look forward to hearing from him what more the Government can do to ensure that Southend Hospital retains its world-class services. I would also be grateful for an update in due course from the Secretary of State, perhaps by letter, on the STP referral when that decision has been made. I look forward to working with the Department proactively on that issue.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
Order. I assume, Sir David, that you are happy for James Duddridge to speak in the debate.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
Apologies for not giving notice in the normal way, Mr Davies; my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) did give me permission to speak in his debate.
The short version of my speech is “Thank you”—not to my hon. Friend, or to yourself, Mr Davies, but to the people who work at Southend Hospital. It is impossible to thank all 4,500 personally. I would like to say that I went to Southend Hospital last night as an assiduous Member of Parliament, purely with the intention of thanking them; sadly, I went to see a family member in A&E, who is thankfully now out. Quite often, constituents see politicians as somewhat remote, but most of the time I have spent at Southend Hospital has been either as a patient myself—I spent three months in hospital only a few years back—or visiting one of my family members.
We are fortunate to have Southend Hospital so close by, but I am unfortunate enough to have to visit it in a non-professional capacity far too frequently. The people at Southend Hospital provided fantastic care for Jack Thompson, my father-in-law, in his final days. As a Member of Parliament, I quite often find myself visiting constituents. There is such compassion and care during those final hours, as there is care and compassion in every ward, whether that is for the newborns in Neptune ward or for people with dementia in Wilson ward.
My hon. Friend mentioned the hospital’s stars awards, which brought him, me and our right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) together as local MPs. It is amazing to see the depth of those individuals’ compassion and commitment to their roles. As an individual, I have seen that small things can mean the difference between an average person and a fantastic, exceptional person. It might be a cup of tea, or explaining for the third time something that is bleeding obvious, but which, to a parent who is so stressed by what is happening, is hard to take in. Or it might be nurses who put themselves in really troubling jobs—for example, dealing with parents of newborn babies who have passed away, and having to do that day in, day out. The difference that those people can make is absolutely amazing, and one person won a stars award for dealing with those types of situations. That takes an incredibly special person. I thank all those individuals.
I also thank Clare Panniker, who is leading the three hospitals tremendously well. The transformation programme is fascinating and fantastic, at a time when we have more money going into our three local hospitals, as well as more nurses and more doctors. However, there still needs to be more change.
In all candour, I was disappointed with the Southend local authority for referring the whole of the transformation programme, because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, I trust clinicians. We did have issues around the stroke unit, but they were being dealt with by Paul Guyler, the lead clinician. There were and still are issues on transport, but the idea that the whole transformation programme is wrong is incorrect. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) is effervescing with rage at Southend council. I do not want to be overly dramatic, but she felt that lives had been lost in Chelmsford because we had not got on with the capital expenditure and the specialisation across the three hospitals that gives our families and our constituents better care. Let us push back on some of the issues, but let us also get on with it, and further improve what is a fantastic local hospital.
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to take part in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for their contributions. They have all raised points that I wanted to come to and I hope I can respond to them in my reply, because the subject is very important. As constituency MPs, whether a Minister or no, we all recognise the crucial importance of local healthcare systems and what they deliver for our constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West is well known as a passionate advocate for his constituents, and has been for many years, but he was also right to point to his distinguished service on the then Health Committee, a Committee that has always done so much to drive thought. He mentioned a number of issues and said he did not want to blow his own trumpet, but some of the issues that he raised are now mainstream issues, and that is hugely important.
My hon. Friend was right when he said in his opening remarks that he thought the NHS was the best health service in the world. I completely agree; that is right. He is also right, of course, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East, to say that it is the staff who drive the hospitals and the service for our constituents. As my hon. Friends did, I extend my thanks and those of everybody to those staff, and to everybody who works in the health service, whatever they do. They all contribute in a significant way. They also spoke of the role of volunteers, which was again right. I see the work that volunteers do in my local hospitals. People sometimes forget how that work contributes to the whole experience; it makes life easier for people at an extraordinarily stressful time. I also note with interest the comments made about the stars awards.
I had the chance to speak to Clare Panniker yesterday. She is clearly an impressive professional, driving change for the right reason, which is listening to clinicians and ensuring the best outcome for patients.
I wanted to make those remarks right at the start, and I will say a few words on the three issues that my hon. Friends have talked about—stroke, cancer, and transport and access. The national picture on stroke services is that there is a need to improve the quality of service provision and outcomes for all patients. It is well recognised that stroke is the fourth-biggest killer in the United Kingdom and a leading cause of disability. Although the 10-year national stroke strategy came to an end last year, a programme board was established in March 2018 to oversee the development of a new stroke plan. The fact that one has continued does not mean in any sense that the prioritisation has changed; indeed, that board is now chaired by NHS England’s medical director, Steve Powis, and by the chief executive of the Stroke Association.
To add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West said about specific local issues, we should also mention the importance of the national context. I absolutely understand some of the issues that he raised, and he is right to say that changes, and the rationale for changes, should be clinician-led rather than politician-led. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East acknowledged, that is actually what is happening with the transformation programme, which is why I understand the frustration of my hon. Friends. They will understand that it is impossible for me to comment on that in detail today due to the referral, but I give the guarantee that when the process has ended and the decisions have been made, all my hon. Friends—not only the three who are present, but others who are concerned—will of course be given sight of that recommendation and the chance to comment on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West has explained that he has a particular interest in transport. For the sake of clarity, it is important that I set out what has been agreed by the clinical commissioning group and what some of the alternative paths are, in response to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. On the transfer of patients, we all know that the CCGs have approved a treat-and-transfer model, whereby a small number of patients will receive initial treatment at their local A&E before being transferred to another hospital. Decisions on patient transfer will be made solely as clinical decisions and discussed with patients prior to transfer. Modelling by the CCG and clinicians suggests that, on average, 15 patients a day might be transferred from their A&E to a different site for clinical reasons and due to the proposed changes. It is a vital part of a joined-up service, especially where specialisation increases—the need for this may or may not increase. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, I encourage hon. Members to continue to press this matter with the STP once it is resolved, because I think it is vital.
Mr Francois
The critical thing we need to know is who will provide the service. The obvious answer is the East of England Ambulance Service, but it faces serious resource and capacity challenges. It is difficult for us to support this plan wholeheartedly until we are given definitive answers. Who will provide the service, and how will it work in practice?
Mr Hammond
There are three answers to that: critical cases, non-critical cases and transport for patients’ families and carers. Let me start with non-emergency transfers, which at the moment are provided through patient transfer services, as my right hon. Friend knows. They are available in Southend when medical conditions are such that patients require the skills or support of staff on or after the journey. He is absolutely right to say that critical cases, or those that do not fit into the first category, are provided by the East of England Ambulance Service. He will not be surprised to learn that, even in my short time as Minister, I have already been made aware of some of the issues with that service. Nor will he be surprised to hear that the Department is working with the relevant authorities to ensure that standards and resources are made available to bring the service up to the expected standard, and that ambulance response standards are met.
On patients’ families and carers, I understand—my hon. Friends will know better than I do—that there is a joint CCG-local council transport working group. It has been exploring a number of options to make transport easier, including, I understand, the creation of a shuttle service between hospitals in Southend, Basildon and Broomfield. Key to that endeavour will be the volunteers who we spoke about earlier and the expansion of volunteering.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West spoke a little about cancer services, and he will understand that the proposed new model maintains Southend as the specialist cancer centre. He was right to make the point that it meets the two-week standard for GP referrals, and that more than 1,700 patients have been treated this year, but he is equally right to say that the length of waiting times is indeed high. I reassure him that we are absolutely committed, as a Government, to increasing the levels of early diagnosis, and that a comprehensive plan is in place to drive down those waiting times. He is right to have that concern, which I share.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West talked about the new model of stroke provision. He will know that the idea is for people to be seen initially at their local A&E, where thrombolysis treatment will be provided should it be required, and then there will be a transfer to a specialist stroke unit at Basildon, should that be necessary. That will be a clinician-led decision and based on the confirmation of stroke. That hyper-acute stroke unit would give patients, in that critical first 72-hour period, the intensive nursing and therapy support they need to have the best chance of recovery and the best outcomes. Basildon has been selected for the specialist centre because its stroke services are co-located with the vascular, interventional radiology and cardiology teams; it therefore makes sense to have the service there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West raised the issue of the mobile stroke unit, and he is right to say that the trial is ongoing and not yet complete. I join him in thinking that this is really quite an exciting project. I look forward to seeing the results of the trial and the evaluation. We know that the project is separate from the STP, and therefore any decision to locate a permanent mobile stroke unit at Southend will be made at the local level, but I think the national implications of this trial will be exciting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West said that he wanted to hear about future funding and whether there would be any delay. Any funding of course depends on local plans and on clinical support. I was going to read out a quote from Dr Paul Guyler just to reinforce the point that everything that is being done in this area is being led by clinicians, but as my hon. Friend has already made the point that Dr Guyler supports these things—his support is one of the drivers for the change—I will not delay us by reading that aloud. When a decision is made on a clinical basis, the Department and its arm’s length bodies are committed to ensuring that there is the investment available to deliver what is necessary and to make a real difference, but clearly that would depend on the plans and the outcome of the reconfiguration. My hon. Friend knows that I cannot say much about that now; none the less, I give him the commitment that I will speak to officials about this after the debate. If there is more to add at this stage, I will write to him and to my hon. Friends.
In the 30 seconds I have left, I want to say that this has been a short but fascinating debate. It shows that my hon. Friends recognise the contribution of professionals and what Southend Hospital does for their constituents. I appreciate that the potential changes to the local health services inspire impassioned debate—it is right that this is led by clinicians, and that the Government give it proper consideration.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered reforming the regulation of shisha lounges.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I am delighted to have secured this debate. In a week in which Ministers have been held in contempt of Parliament for the first time ever, and we have had ongoing and various crises related to the handling of Brexit, talking about the regulation of shisha premises might seem a little niche. I have found myself educating many colleagues about what shisha is and about the problems relating to shisha premises in the affected communities.
Central to this debate is how we as citizens navigate community life together, balancing the social and entertainment needs of some against the needs of residents, and whether we can take effective action when things go wrong. Residents affected by issues relating to shisha lounges, such as those in my constituency and other areas including Westminster, Brent, Ealing, Preston, Manchester and many of our other core cities, can attest to the fact that, when things go wrong, they face the misery of noise nuisance, crime, antisocial behaviour and everything that goes with that. For them, this is definitely not a niche issue. It affects communities profoundly.
I should explain what shisha is and what form these premises take. Shisha, which is also known as a water pipe, hubble-bubble smoking or a hookah, is a way of smoking tobacco through a bowl and a pipe or a tube. The tobacco is often mixed with other flavours such as mint, coconut or pineapple—I have seen every variety going. The tobacco is burned, and then the vapour or smoke passes through a water basin before inhalation. It is a social activity; people do it in groups. It is not dissimilar to going out for a night at the cinema or any other kind of entertainment activity. People go out for a night of shisha smoking.
I am not exactly sure where shisha smoking originated, but it is common in parts of the middle east, Africa and Asia. In recent years it has become much more popular in the UK. I have been aware of shisha places in Birmingham for some years, but there has been a proliferation of establishments there over the past five years. It is a growing trend in our major cities. I have never smoked shisha or any kind of cigarette, and I cannot personally see the attraction of it, but many of my constituents, friends and acquaintances enjoy it as a night out and regularly go to a shisha lounge, bar or café.
These establishments are much more varied than might be assumed. One of the stereotypical assumptions about what shisha premises look like is that they are typically some sort of middle eastern café with a middle eastern food menu and décor that is indicative of some sort of middle eastern origin—almost tent-like. Certainly, some establishments fit that stereotype, but there are also many huge venues—swish, swanky establishments that are often spread out over a number of floors in buildings that may previously have been warehouses. They look and feel like any other major nightclub or similar attraction in a major city.
In my constituency and across Birmingham I have seen that the clientele of those establishments is much more cosmopolitan than might be assumed. It might be thought that this activity is primarily enjoyed by people from black and minority ethnic communities, but it is much wider. That is partly because some of those establishments do not sell alcohol—some do, but some do not—and make a virtue of offering an alcohol-free space for people who wish to enjoy it. That fills a gap in the market for young Muslims, in particular, who want to go out and have a good time just like anybody else, but want to be in an alcohol-free space. There has also been an increase in the number of 16 to 24-year-olds across all communities and social classes who do not drink alcohol. Entrepreneurial businessmen and women are trying to fill the demand in the market by opening up these types of venues, which do not serve alcohol but provide a night-time entertainment offer for different sections of the community.
Many shisha establishments serve food—food is a key part of their offer. Many double up as dessert places—another type of venue that has proliferated—where people can get milkshakes that contain three days’-worth of their recommended calorie intake and smoke shisha at the same time. Some are modest cafés and others are much more like nightclubs. Across Birmingham the number of establishments of various different forms has grown over the past few years.
As a Member of Parliament, a resident and a citizen of my city, I was aware that these venues were growing in popularity, but I had not come across the issues that affect local people when one opens up until I did a coffee morning in my constituency in the summer of 2016. I expected it to be a normal coffee morning, when the issues we would expect were raised, but every resident who came wanted to talk about the problems they were facing as a result of a shisha lounge opening directly opposite their small housing estate. It related to a shisha lounge called Arabian Nites, which has featured much in Birmingham news over the past few months.
The stories that my residents shared with me were horrendous. They said that a nightclub had opened directly opposite their houses, and they were powerless to do anything to stop the issues they faced as a result. Some residents had been attacked, and some had woken up to find patrons of the establishment urinating in their front gardens—in one case, as they were getting ready to take their children to school in the morning. The noise nuisance was so bad that they could never open their windows at night—not even in the peak heat of summer—and even with their windows shut the noise disturbance was pretty high. Parking became a total nightmare, and there was partying till the early hours.
People told me that their community had been ruined. One of the saddest things is that in that area there are lots of council housing tenants who have lived there for decades and are the absolute backbone of the local community. They have been there through thick and thin and have seen lots of changes to their community, but they love their community and the place where they live.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does she agree that public awareness campaigns, such as one that Manchester City Council launched recently, are crucial to raise awareness of the damaging health impacts of smoking shisha? In addition, we need effective licensing and enforcement to crack down on businesses that flout regulations on the sale of shisha. Just a week ago, Manchester Council seized 95 shisha pipes from one property—
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. There is plenty of opportunity to make speeches, but interventions must be short. May I ask you to bring that remark to a close?
Afzal Khan
I will. Thank you, Mrs Main. It is more than 10 years since the smoking ban came into effect, yet businesses continue to flout the law—
Shabana Mahmood
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) for his intervention. I know that a lot of work has been done in Manchester. I will come on to some of the public health issues. He is right to raise public health concerns. There are, of course, public health duties on local authorities, and the public health risks relating to shisha are not well understood and publicised. He is absolutely right that much more awareness is needed. I congratulate Manchester for the good work it has done in this area.
The common life of those residents and the community they created, which they love and have thrived in for all these years, was being ruined. Some of those stalwart residents—the absolute backbone of the community—told me that they wanted to leave and were desperate to move out. In fact, they most wanted my help with council housing transfers. I thought that was one of the saddest things, because those people are the lifeblood of the area. If they move out, we will lose something much more profound in the community. It was all because they simply could not tolerate the daily misery they were facing because of the shisha venue.
As people became more vocal with their complaints—I took up the issues and worked with the council and the police, who were doing their best to manage the fallout from the venue opening near my residents, and there was more media coverage in the Birmingham Post and the Birmingham Mail—residents became worried about reprisals from patrons of the venue. Suddenly, it became much more of a hot topic. Things then took a more serious and frightening turn, because gun violence and other serious crime was taking place. People were up in arms but also terrified. I was shocked that almost overnight a community could be ruined by a shisha place opening.
As the local Member of Parliament, I initially treated this as a policing matter. It is interesting that other parliamentarians and council leaders have tended to raise it with Home Office Ministers as a policing issue. I, too, talked to the police. We thought about having more policing patrols and possible interventions, but eventually I had to conclude that the law itself makes things complicated in this area. My thought was, “Just take away the shisha licence,” because that is the business model on which the premises are based—take it away and they will not have a business and will soon move on—but of course there is no licence for shisha.
In the case of Arabian Nites, it took a couple of serious incidents involving gun discharges—one discharge ricocheted and hit a passer-by—before the police could apply for a closure order under antisocial behaviour rules. Such closure orders are temporary and the one for Arabian Nites was for only three months. The venue has not reopened, but it is free to do so once it has met the new conditions.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that under the Licensing Act 2003 it should not be so difficult to get premises closed down for antisocial behaviour and other breaches of the legislation?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend, the shadow Minister, is absolutely right: the process is too difficult and onerous. I have a copy of the documentation put together at huge cost in time and resource by the police in support of the application for a closure order. It is more than 100 pages long—I was trying to print it before coming to the Chamber so that I could show it to everyone, but my printer broke—given the amount of work and number of witness statements required of police officers.
In the first case against Arabian Nites, the police did not get the closure order and had to apply a second time. Meanwhile, my residents who live with that place directly opposite their homes are terrified of gun violence, of stepping outside late at night and even of taking their kids to the school around the corner. The regime is too onerous, and to rely simply on existing police powers is not good enough. I have nothing but praise, by the way, for the way in which the police have tried to engage with the issue. They have done their best with the avenues open to them.
In Birmingham, a total of three such establishments have been subject to closure orders. All three happen to be in my constituency: Arabian Nites, which I have mentioned; Cloud Nine, which was closed after the suspected sale of laughing gas to children as young as nine, and following breaches of fire safety and venue capacity limits; and the Emperors Lounge, which was closed after a murder was linked to the premises, but which has since reopened after a three-month closure order.
As the law stands, shisha smoking is subject to the ban on smoking in public places, alongside all other smoking in the UK—it is subject to the same rules. Shisha is a tobacco product, so it is subject to the same rules that apply to regular tobacco, in particular the ban on sales to those under 18. When it comes to licensing legislation, however, the Licensing Act covers only the sale of alcohol and certain forms of regulated entertainment. Shisha bars or lounges do not require a licence under regulation unless they sell alcohol or have other regulated entertainment under the 2003 Act.
Some establishments sell alcohol. Arabian Nites was selling alcohol, which was one of the bases on which the police and the council were eventually able to take action, but Cloud Nine and the Emperors Lounge did not have licences for the sale of alcohol, instead falling within the other regulated activities under the Licensing Act. No single agency or piece of statutory legislation regulates shisha activities. If serious incidents occur—shootings or serious violence such as I have had in my constituency—the police may apply for the powers available to them under antisocial behaviour rules, such as a three-month closure order, as we have seen in Birmingham. However, that process takes a lot of time and effort.
Furthermore, many premises will fight their corner with what is available to them through the legal system. It is fair to say, too, that many will do whatever they can to frustrate the legal process, keeping the thing running for as long as possible in order to beat everyone down and evade the enforcement action being sought.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
I would be interested to hear the hon. Lady develop what are some good, well made points about the Licensing Act. Obviously she will be fully cognisant of the fact that many shisha lounges are smaller businesses. These are businesses on which people, their families and their mortgages all rely, so the bar on closing them is often set relatively high. The police have an obligation to show that the business should be closed. How does she think that should be balanced with the argument that she is making?
Shabana Mahmood
I will develop that point. I absolutely acknowledge that shisha lounges are often small businesses, but a lot of the troubled premises are not the average small business. They are big venues and very lucrative—I have learnt a lot more about shisha than I ever anticipated when I first became a Member of Parliament—and the biggest establishments can afford to have personal appearances by celebrities. It is not unusual to find boxers or Instagram stars visiting such places, putting in a personal appearance in the same way as they might for a new nightclub or members’ club opening in any city across the country. There is a distinction to be drawn between the much smaller operations, which are more similar to a café with the added ability to offer shisha smoking to its patrons, and the big ones that are much more like nightclubs.
The legal tests in existing legislation are onerous, and there is a balance to be struck in ensuring that people can have a viable business and not be shut down on spurious grounds or unfairly. Police and council officers are cognisant of their legal responsibilities and do not want to drive away good businesses, but I believe them when they tell me, in my conversations with them, that some of the most troubled establishments employ high-powered lawyers and do everything they can to frustrate the process. That happens right at the beginning of the process, at the planning stage—they set up as a café or restaurant, and add other things as they go along, developing the shisha business. There are many ways around the system, as well as many gaps, which some individuals are keen to exploit, because this is a lucrative business.
In London, Westminster City Council in particular—I am pretty sure it is Westminster, so I hope I have got that right—has led work looking at tobacco duty, which is often not paid on imported shisha, so there are tax implications as well. I do not want to make out that these are all bad businesses—they are not—but where people flout rules and regulations, they do so in a considered and planned way. They know what they are doing, so it is right to weight the law and to make the thresholds in the legal process that have to be crossed more favourable to residents, because when it goes wrong, as it did for the people of Highgate in my constituency, it is horrendous. It ruins lives and breaks communities, and that is too high a price for local residents to pay for the sake of the business needs of some of the shisha establishments.
In Birmingham, we have 37 premises, many of them concentrated in my constituency, but with some in other parts of the city. That is only the ones that we know about—37 premises known to Birmingham City Council. With no specific licence requirement for shisha, many places open without any recourse to any of the authorities whatever. As I said, the numbers have grown rapidly. The highest concentrations of shisha premises are found in the London boroughs of Westminster, Ealing and Brent, while Birmingham has the highest concentration outside of London.
The statutory provisions around fire risk, indoor smoking, the sale of tobacco to minors and the non-payment of tobacco duty, which I mentioned, are regularly frustrated. The sanctions available under tobacco-related laws are not acting as a deterrent. That is certainly our experience in Birmingham.
The fire risks are considerable. In Birmingham alone, we have had six major fires over the last five years. That is not surprising when one drills down into the situation, because within those premises there is a high number of ignition sources, combustible material and often low staff awareness of fire safety, and some of the venues are situated in hard to get to places, or are big and spread out over a number of floors, which poses a risk in and of itself. A business sector that is relatively small in number suffering six big fires in a five-year period is indicative of a much wider problem. Other local authorities are also greatly concerned about the fire risks.
Something that I thought about when drilling down into the issue—the Minister might raise this himself—was whether it was simply a case of the different agencies not working effectively together. Could it be that although the law, annoyingly, is not all neatly in one place and the powers are spread across different Acts of Parliament, it can be used creatively and effectively to bring the problem under control? After two years of dealing with these issues, I can say that it is not a case of the agencies not coming together. I have seen nothing but good practice at Birmingham City Council, and I pay tribute to Janet Bradley, who has taken the lead on shisha issues, and all of her team there. They have worked with all the other teams across the council, they have worked with partner agencies and they have worked very closely with the police, to whom I also pay tribute for all their work, particularly on getting closure orders.
That is the case not just in Birmingham. Westminster City Council, too, has published a strategy, held a symposium, and got everybody with any interest, whether public health, fire safety, or policing—the whole picture—into a room together to create a strategy for them to deal with the problem as far as the law currently allows. Brent Council either won an award or was shortlisted for one for its work in preparing its strategy. In the Commons debate pack produced by the Library, there was an article that I had not seen before, in which Brent Council’s leader, who wrote to the Home Secretary about the problem in 2017, called some of the shisha establishments in Brent “lawless” places that attracted drug-dealing and sex-trafficking. It is not for want of trying by different local authorities run by different political parties, where people have tried to grasp the issue and find a way to cut through and get enforcement action quickly and effectively, but no matter how much good work is done, in truth it takes a disproportionate amount of time to take action with the available powers and resources.
The time has come to enhance the legislative framework surrounding shisha premises and, I believe, institute a licensing regime specifically for shisha premises. That would allow local authorities to license shisha premises to operate in their area and make it illegal for a shisha premises to operate unless it was licensed. It is important to go after the shisha aspect of the entertainment offer of those premises, because that is the basis on which the business model operates. Those venues are not interested in being your average café or restaurant. The shisha is key. It is lucrative. It is absolutely essential to the business model. That activity, rather than anything else that might be included and covered by licensing regulations, needs to be licensed now.
The first aim of the licensing regime would be to reduce the detrimental impact on communities; that must be at the heart of any such regime’s objectives. It must ensure that premises do not cause a public nuisance, along with all the other crime and disorder issues that I have highlighted. There is also space for the raising of hygiene standards and for safeguarding policies to restrict the admission of under-18s. That is not something that I have focused on particularly in my work in Birmingham, but I often see college-age students—under-18s—going to those venues, and it is pointless to have age limits in law if they are openly flouted in that way. A licensing regime would give us the opportunity to put those policies in place.
We need to have sanctions for non-compliance that cannot be frustrated by the company changing name, which often happens. Even when we do have absolute clarity on the ownership and management of the business there are problems. For example, when the police obtained closure orders for the three venues in my constituency, it was normal, when they or council officers turned up, for people who clearly worked in those establishments to say that they did not work there and did not know who the owner was. Many of the venues do not even have a postal address because, like some other problem night-time economy venues, they evade postal contact. That sounds like a small issue, but it frustrates council officers’ or police officers’ ability to contact those responsible when trying to fulfil their legal duties, and from day one, that stops them taking effective action.
Following discussions with officers at Birmingham City Council and others, I conclude that there are three ways in which we could pursue a licensing regime for shisha premises. The best and most workable solution would be to make an amendment to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which would simply state that we are going to control shisha premises. That amendment should provide for an adoptive licensing regime that gives flexibility to local authorities, so that they can set local controls to deal with the issues that they face in their areas. That is important because problems take different forms according to the locality in which the shisha lounge is located. On Edgware Road, for example, problems in connection with shisha premises are of the same order but play out slightly differently from those in Highgate, in my constituency. An adoptive regime that gives flexibility to local authorities is the best way forward, taking a similar approach to that which has been taken on sex entertainment venues. That gives local authorities powers to set local controls and, in doing so, puts local people back in the game and gives them a say on what happens in their local area. I believe that is the change that best lends itself to a licensing regime for shisha premises.
Many of the standard terms that apply in other licensing regimes would be easily transferable to a shisha regime, which would comprise all of the standard enforcement actions that flow from licensing regimes. The key ultimate power would be the ability to revoke a business’s licence and thereby put it out of business, rather than providing an opportunity for it to come back in some other shape or form.
If we do not go down the road of an amendment to the 1982 Act, there are two other ways in which I and others consider that a change might be made. Another way of trying to control shisha premises is to strengthen the current provisions of the Health Act 2006 and the Smoke-free (Premises and Enforcement) Regulations 2006. Current regulations stipulate how enclosed a space has to be in order to comply with the legislation. Obviously, there must be proper ventilation and so on. Some premises earning good money can install a retractable roof. When somebody goes to conduct a check, the roof is off so it looks like there is adequate ventilation, as required under the regulations. The roof, of course, goes straight back on as soon as the officer has left the building, because offering shisha outdoors, in the cold weather or in the rain, will massively affect the business model. It is not tenable to assume that the 2006 regulations are being regularly complied with in some of those establishments. We could try to find a way around that but, in the end, I concluded that trying to draft something that closes all the loopholes in the legislation and covers the ways some problematic shisha premises operate would not achieve the desired effect.
I also considered whether it would be possible to reach an agreement on an interpretation of the local government declaration on tobacco, for local authorities with public health duties. An interpretation could be added that councils cannot allow any kind of licence for businesses with a model that gains money from people smoking. The public health duty is to try to reduce the risk of harm from smoking. I am not an official draftswoman, but I did not think that would work. I played around with two other possibilities before deciding that the 1982 Act is the way forward.
Following advice from Janet Bradley and the officer team at Birmingham City Council, and having consulted other local authorities that face this issue, I concluded that the cleanest and most effective way of dealing with the problem is to adopt a licensing regime under the 1982 Act. I would be delighted if the Minister stood up and said, “Yes, you’re absolutely right. We will get on this straightaway.” If that does not happen, I would like him and his officials to have an open mind about the licensing regime and at least to commit to exploring what changes under the 1982 Act might look like. There is a wealth of experience across local government and from other parliamentarians in this House—some colleagues are waiting to speak in the Brexit debate in the main Chamber and could not be here—that the Minister could draw on, which hopefully will convince him that there is a problem that needs a solution, and that this is the best solution on offer.
Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton about public health, shisha smoking is as harmful as normal tobacco smoking, if not more so. People still think that the smoke is much less harmful because it goes through the water filtration system before being inhaled. The World Health Organisation and other organisations that have researched this are clear: in one hour on a shisha pipe, a person can take in as much tobacco as if they had smoked 100 cigarettes. The health implications of large numbers of our population smoking shisha on a regular basis cannot be underestimated.
Local authorities have a public health duty. Places such as Manchester, Westminster and Birmingham are trying to do what they can to raise awareness of the public health implications of shisha, but piecemeal work by good people in good local authorities is not the way forward. The work should be led at ministerial level, at least to convene a roundtable to get the right people in the room, to think about how we might do more together through central Government and to raise awareness of the harm of shisha smoking.
We are storing up future public health problems for ourselves. I would be grateful if the Minister shared his thoughts on that. My absolute ask, as I have said throughout my speech, is for a licensing regime for shisha. The residents in my community have suffered greatly because of the gaps in the current system. It has taken us too long to get temporary action. That is not good enough. My residents deserve better. A licensing regime is the best way to deal with the problem once and for all.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
We seem to have a surfeit of time, so if you want to call other anyone else to speak, Mrs Main, that is fine.
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) for securing this debate on an issue of great importance to her constituents that has wider implications for us all, regardless of the part of the UK we represent. I should say that my voice is going, but not because I have been researching for this debate—it disappeared overnight but I will do my best to say what I can before it gives way.
There are a number of shisha bars in Glasgow. We counted them up in the office and think there are eight, six of which are in my constituency. We even picked up word that there is a shisha-on-wheels delivery service. I am not quite sure where that would fit in current legislation in Scotland or in the UK. It is clear that this is a grey area and that more needs to be done. Where there are smoke and mirrors, literally, there is potential for criminal enterprise and issues with building regulations, enforcement and the source of the tobacco, which may enter the country illicitly. A friend, Qasim Hanif, raised a concern that the tobacco is poor quality and does not comply with regulations, which causes health issues additional to those the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood set out.
Glasgow adopted the Scottish Government’s smoking ban in 2006, and it has been spectacularly well complied with ever since. More than 10 years on, it is unthinkable that people used to smoke cigarettes in bars, restaurants, buses, theatres and cinemas. We have moved on so dramatically from that. The outlier of the regulation has been shisha bars. In December 2012 a shisha bar in my constituency was the first to be prosecuted for flouting the smoking ban. Even now, I hear worrying reports of underground shisha bars without the appropriate ventilation or fire safety measures. The hon. Lady mentioned that the fire risk is quite significant.
A local councillor in my area, Stephen Dornan, recently objected to a shisha bar in Tradeston due to the antisocial behaviour associated with the premises, although the majority of those in my constituency are in industrial areas rather than residential areas. If that changed and they became more commonplace in residential areas in the city, we may well see more of the antisocial behaviour that the hon. Lady outlined. In a broadly industrial area there might not be the same number of complaints as in a community area, as she described.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) on securing this debate. I apologise for not being here earlier; I had a meeting with the Fisheries Minister and could not get back in time. The social issues are important, but so are the health issues that the hon. Lady referred to. Shisha is becoming increasingly popular in all sections of the community. Although I do not have a shisha lounge in my constituency, there are some indications that they are popular among young people. Smokers usually range between 18 and 55 years old, but shisha lounge users are in their 20s. Does the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) agree that it is imperative to have a regulation in place to ensure that the younger generation, who think it is a herbal supplement and perfectly healthy, are in a safe and regulated environment?
Alison Thewliss
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to see him here because we missed him very much in the Adjournment debate last night. I was going to send out a search party to see where he had disappeared to.
Shisha bars are gaining popularity among young people who do not drink alcohol, either by choice or because of their religion. There is clearly some demand for that type of space where no alcohol is served, because the options in many towns and cities are pretty limited. If people want to go out, they are obliged to be in a place where alcohol is being sold and drunk, but that is not necessarily appropriate for everyone. There is a balance to be struck between the social good, where people can come together in an environment where there is no alcohol, and the harm from smoking shishas that the hon. Gentleman points out.
The perception that smoking shisha is cleaner and better than smoking cigarettes is a very dangerous myth, particularly for young people. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood pointed out that one session on a shisha can be as bad for your health as smoking 100 cigarettes. That is quite stark. That information needs to be out there and well known. If the Government did more to promote the public health message, that might be useful for many of our communities. The tobacco is usually fruit flavoured and slightly different from cigarettes, which can offer a false sense of security that it is not as bad for you, but smoking it doubles the risk of lung cancer and respiratory illness. It also contains all the factors that we know are harmful about tobacco and it is addictive. Because of the way that shisha is consumed, people take other chemicals into their lungs from the heating and burning process. It can be more harmful than smoking.
In Scotland, business owners need to be licensed to sell tobacco, including shisha tobacco. That does not apply in the rest of the UK, so businesses selling tobacco must be on the Scottish tobacco retailers register. Those found to be flouting the rules by selling tobacco without a licence can face a £20,000 fine. Such legislation is useful. Glasgow City Council has also done some work on this issue and reported on the enforcement of smoke-free legislation and initiatives. It had a specific shisha initiative to look at the issue within the city because it appreciated that the problem was growing and had perhaps simply grown organically.
The council visited different premises and had discussions with owners and environmental health officers, who conducted some of the enforcement initiatives with Police Scotland. They visited premises where persistent non-compliance had been noted, but the premises changed hands quite quickly afterwards. Such action makes enforcement difficult. As the hon. Lady pointed out, it can also mean greater cost to the police and local authorities. Because the regime is not quite there, the costs fall to environmental health and the police to take enforcement action. As we know, local authorities face great restrictions on their ability to do additional work.
We need to look more widely. Some of the engagement did lead to some better practice and improved things. Ventilation was considered. That engagement led to better reconstruction of premises and how they facilitate premises design that does not flout the legislation and supports the smoke-free legislation in Scotland, so there has been some positive engagement with enforcement action and we should take the positives from that.
More could be done to tackle the cultural attitudes towards smoking shisha. Although cigarette packets display warnings and graphic images, no similar branding regulations apply to selling shisha products. In fact, the opposite applies. The bars are glamorous and the surroundings luxurious. They are promoted in the same way as pubs—“Come and watch the football and smoke some shisha.” We need to think about how that is becoming more glamorised and tackle it with proper enforcement action and public health information. I urge the Minister to work with the Scottish Government on this matter, because good practice could be shared in a relatively small area of policy. We should see what more we could do together to get the public health message out there and make sure that people know what they are getting into when they smoke shisha.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) for securing the debate. She has done the House a real service because a lot of us, even though we know something about licensing, were unaware of the issue. I hope that when we hear from the Minister we will be able to chart a way forward. From the briefing that my hon. Friend kindly sent to us all, I was struck by how big the issue is, and is becoming more so, particularly in our urban areas. The figures she provided on the growth of shisha premises were stark: from three in Birmingham in 2007 to 28 in 2018, with more planned. The issue is obviously growing and needs to be addressed.
From listening to my hon. Friend’s speech and looking at the issue, I thought there were perhaps two separate issues that we need to address. The first is the appropriateness and effectiveness of the Licensing Act 2003, and then there is getting licensing legislation that is specific to shisha lounges. I want to look at the first issue for a moment, because I managed to read the 100 pages of documentation online about the Arabian Nites shisha lounge. I saw for myself how difficult it was for authorities in Birmingham, including the police, to get it shut down, even when there were major firearms offences, and that was really worrying. Presumably the lounge had a licence to sell alcohol and for late-night music that was covered under the 2003 Act, but lots of probably criminal activities went on. We might associate some of the antisocial behaviour recorded at the club with a nightclub that had got out of control. There were fire safety concerns, smoking indoors, antisocial behaviour, noise, litter, non-payment of tobacco duty and underage sales, as well as other non-compliant activities.
Interestingly, the Minister raised a point about not putting local businesses out of business. Of course, none of us would want to do that if they are properly managed, are compliant with legislation, are not causing a public nuisance and are not a hazard to public safety. The one voice that we have not heard enough of in this debate, except for what my hon. Friend said, is the voice of the local community, who find the Licensing Act very hard to challenge. The police had to go through a difficult court case. It took days and days to gather evidence to get the premises that had breached so many laws closed down. It is not clear yet whether the premises cannot simply open again under another owner, which I know has happened in several areas. So the first issue that I wish to put on the Minister’s agenda—I will come back to it in a minute or two—is the appropriateness and effectiveness of the Licensing Act.
The second issue, and the major substance of my hon. Friend’s concerns, is that there is no specific licensing scheme that applies to shisha lounges, especially the ones—most of them—that do not serve alcohol. Where licensing seems to fit, as she rightly pointed out, is through what I think could be an addition to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 by simply adding a new schedule to the Act that would cover shisha lounges. The purpose of the Act is to enable local authorities to regulate certain types of activity in their areas. The schedules currently cover sex establishments, street traders, refreshment premises, tattoo parlours, ear piercers and so on. I had a look at Birmingham City Council’s website and Durham Council’s website to see exactly what the system entails. Generally speaking, it is straightforward and the website is clear about what people have to do. I looked at tattooing and Durham’s website clearly states:
“Applicants will need to ensure that their procedures, equipment and facilities comply with local bylaws—are safe, hygienic, prevent the spread of disease, and comply with the duty of care required by the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.”
Also, they are inspected to ensure that they are fire- safety compliant. So we have a useful piece of legislation and it would not take the Minster or his team a great deal of effort to introduce an amendment to the Act and simply add a new schedule. What is interesting and relevant about schedules is the fact that they are specific to the type of activity being regulated. I hope the Minster will think about that.
It seems to me that, specifically with regard to shisha lounges, hygiene standards could be raised and safeguarding work could be done. There are sanctions for non-compliance and there is clarity on ownership and management. That can be a real problem not only with shisha lounges, but with nightclubs and activities that fall under the 2003 Act. Clear sanctions can be highlighted for a breach of tobacco control regulations and public health legislation, and I hope that the Minister will consider that.
I have a couple of additional points to raise, in relation to the planning regime. We need to think about how planning could be used for better regulation, particularly with respect to the number of shisha establishments in an area—because they do not get planning permission as shisha establishments. Generally, they get it as a restaurant or café, and the shisha activity is an add-on. That creates an issue for the planning system, and we may need to consider a use class that will specifically address shisha lounges. There is also an issue with regard to arguing that there is a cumulative impact from establishments in an area. Usually, cumulative impact applies to premises that fall under the Licensing Act 2003 rather than those covered by the 1982 Act. Building regulations are also relevant—in particular, the enforcement of regulations on fire safety and controlling the numbers attending premises. Because of cuts, many local authorities find it difficult to employ enforcement officers.
Obviously we need to address the issues to do with shisha lounges. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood is right: an amendment to the 1982 Act would do it. However, we need an overall review of the Licensing Act 2003, to test whether it is still fit for purpose. The experience of many Members of Parliament is that residents find it too difficult under the 2003 Act to get premises closed, to stop proliferation of premises, and to stop premises’ opening times getting later—or earlier in the morning. I am not quite sure which way round to put that. There is a good opportunity for the Minister to put his stamp on some new and, hopefully, effective legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), whose constructive approach to the debate has engaged those on both the Opposition and the Government Front Benches. Her speech showed her passion for supporting her constituents and ensured that, rather than having a political argument—the issue is probably above politics—we have engaged in a constructive discussion about what we can and should do, and how people can work together to achieve something. I intend to follow the same constructive approach in my response to the debate.
I am a bit of a libertarian, so I am not necessarily always in favour of introducing new licences or imposing new requirements on business. The hon. Lady said that some of her constituents like going to shisha bars. Funnily enough, I was talking to a reporter on my local paper, the Lancashire Telegraph, which covers Blackburn—just over the border from my constituency—where there are some shisha bars. Most of them are well run and managed, and I know that the hon. Lady will confirm that in relation to her constituency. Many are smaller businesses, and often family businesses. They provide people with a living.
Today’s debate is important, because the prevalence of shisha bars is something new for Britain and our society, and my Department of course is responsible for communities. It is exciting that there are new ways for people to relax that do not necessarily involve alcohol. When such changes happen in Blackburn, Manchester, London, Birmingham and elsewhere, we must look at the law and see whether it covers the current situation. I suppose the question we should ask is: what response to a new activity would be proportionate?
The law currently governs many of the spaces in question, but I accept the hon. Lady’s point about the complexity of the law and the need for multi-agency working. Many of the relevant provisions will be in planning legislation, including on such matters as the construction of ventilation and outdoor seating areas. There is a requirement to license outdoor seating areas. Environmental health will have a role and, of course, some of the more serious crimes that the hon. Lady mentioned must be dealt with by the police. We cannot expect—I know she is not asking for this—local authorities to control the most serious associated gun and gang violence through licensing law. Whatever we do—even if we bring forward a new licensing regime—we must not lose multi-agency working.
There are, of course, already severe sanctions for breaching the existing regulations and laws, including one of up to £2,500 for breaching the smoking ban, as has been mentioned. Antisocial behaviour closure notices provide the opportunity to close businesses, as we heard with respect to Arabian Nites—although the process the hon. Lady described was quite difficult. On that specific case, it is worth noting that obviously a licensing regime will not be a silver bullet. The venue was licensed and therefore was subject to existing licensing laws—particularly for alcohol. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), speaking for the Opposition, said that it would require days of work by enforcement bodies, including the police, to reach the point where the licence would be removed. I suggest that under a new licensing regime where places were licensed for shisha rather than alcohol—or where there was joint licensing—it would still require days of work to prove that licences had been breached. Often the people running the businesses, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood pointed out, rely on them for their living.
Jim Shannon
Would it be possible to regulate the businesses under council entertainment licences? Residents living close by who had concerns about antisocial behaviour or anything else could, through the application process, have input into whether a licence was granted. That would perhaps give control to the community.
Jake Berry
I am extremely grateful for that intervention, which draws me on to my next point. When we acknowledge that something new may have problems attached to it, we should next ask ourselves whether a national or local response would be better. I want to consider what can be done through existing local authority powers, whether through entertainment licences or by engaging in collaborative working. As has been identified, at the moment shisha bars tend to be in concentrated areas across England, but perhaps a national response is not the best one. I shall certainly ask my officials to look at the best practice that has been adopted in Manchester and Westminster. Whatever the outcome of the debate, we can probably all learn from that. Where local authorities have identified shisha bars as an issue for their area, or even a benefit, it would be worth their talking to each other and working together. I am sure there is best practice to be shared.
Shabana Mahmood
From the work that I have done, and from engaging with Birmingham City Council, I know that council officers who deal with shisha issues in local authorities where it is a problem are already in contact with one another. They know each other well and get together regularly to share best practice, so it happens already. I appreciate what the Minister has said so far. I guess what I was explaining from my experience, which I hope has been noted a bit more than the Minister’s speech has signalled, is that the current rules have too many gaps. Unless there is alcohol, nothing can be done. It is too difficult to get action where there is a licence for alcohol, but if there is no alcohol licence it still takes too long. Of the three shisha bars in my constituency that were closed, two did not have licences for alcohol. I hope that he will reflect on that.
Jake Berry
I am not sure I accept that if a premises does not sell alcohol nothing can be done, and I referred earlier to a plethora of powers that are available to the multi-agencies, particularly local authorities. I accept that this is a new issue, and I applaud the collaborative work being undertaken by local authorities, because it is worth them exploring what they can do. The real challenge, however, is enforcement. The hon. Member for City of Durham mentioned the inability of council officers to go around with clipboards enforcing the rules, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood identified the issue of protractible roofs, which are rolled open in mid-summer when environmental health officers visit, but closed as soon as they have left. There are certainly challenges regarding the enforcement of existing powers, which is something we should address.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I mentioned the need for enforcement after breaches of the Licensing Act 2003 and the 1982 Act, but no one should think that I believe enforcement to be the answer—I do not. I think that there is a gap in the legislation, and Opposition Members understand clearly how to address it.
Jake Berry
Again—hon. Members are being helpful to me today—that brings me to my next point. We have been considering whether a local or national response is best, and if at the end of that evidence trail a national response is appropriate, my mind is not closed to that. As I said, however, there is no silver bullet, and some issues that have arisen are serious criminal offences that would not be covered by any licence—illegally held firearms are not subject to a licensing regime, so we must be careful to have a good look at that issue.
That brings me to my offer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, because her idea about a roundtable is extremely good. I happily invite her to come and meet me and officials, together with council officers who have real expertise in this area, and we as a Department should start that dialogue about how we can help and what would be an appropriate national response, if indeed one is required. The bar for closing someone’s business should be quite high, as should the bar for a national response when many powers already rest with local authorities. I have not closed my mind to the fact that there should perhaps be a national response, but a lot of work must take place before we get there. I hope that is helpful.
The hon. Lady spoke about shisha bars being an add-on to many cafés and restaurants, and that is something we have identified. In my high street, the local coffee shop is also a bookshop—I am rather keen on books, so I go there quite a lot. In the evening it is also a yoga studio, but I am not quite as keen on yoga and cannot admit to having done it. The multi-use of retail premises was one thing identified by our future high street forum, and particularly the work of Sir John Timpson, who advises the Government on future high street policy. We are lucky that he is doing that as he is one of Britain’s most experienced and longest serving retailers.
As an acknowledgment of the challenges posed by a relatively static use class order system that dates from the 1980s, on the same day as the most recent Budget we launched a consultation on the future of that system on the high street, although not more widely for industrial units. That consultation remains open, and I recommend that the hon. Lady, her council and the hon. Member for City of Durham take part. Again, we have approached this in a very open way, and in the first potential major refresh of use class orders since the mid-1980s, it is important to ensure that the static system becomes more mobile and reflects changes such as the arrival of shisha bars on our high street.
Finally, the prevalence and growth of shisha bars is the sort of thing we try to encourage for our future high street forum, as long as they are legal, well run and do not impede unnecessarily on local residents. The future of the high street must be about a mix of leisure and retail, and all recent reports—including by Sir John Timpson on the Government’s future high street forum, and the Grimsey review—identify that if high streets are not just to survive but to thrive, they must incorporate the night-time economy.
We must get the regulation right and be satisfied that existing laws are enforced well, and if we decide that new regulation is required, we should consider that. A thriving night-time economy is key to the future of our high streets. Indeed, that point is not just for today, because in the most recent Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor identified a £600 million-plus fund for the future high street. We have the future high street forum, and I will conclude my remarks by again thanking Sir John Timpson for his extraordinary work on high streets, which will benefit the entire United Kingdom.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, as well as the Minister for not closing his mind to the idea of a national-level response and a new licensing regime for shisha bars. I take on board what he says about requiring a high threshold to be passed before somebody’s business can be closed. Members of my family, and my friends and constituents who go to well-run shisha places and have a nice time out, will not thank me for getting their lovely venue, which they enjoy, shut down. I am not a killjoy and I am not trying to get rid of good businesses and establishments; my concern is focused on where things go wrong, and at the moment I cannot accept that we have what is needed to head off such problems before they start affecting residents in the way that many in my community have been affected. I take on board what the Minister said about thresholds that must be crossed, and we must ensure that we have fully considered all the measures currently available. I hope that on further reflection, and given that he does not have a closed mind on the matter, I will be able to persuade him and his colleagues that a licensing regime is necessary.
Normal nightclubs can become troubled premises because they attract the attention of gangs or protection rackets—we know those things happen. I take on board the Minister’s point that there is no silver bullet, but there is a whole world of activity before we get to the serious end of the spectrum that a licensing regime could take into account. I will certainly take up the Minister’s offer of a roundtable, particularly by engaging with council officials from across the country who have a wealth of knowledge on these matters.
Jake Berry
I am sorry to intervene on the hon. Lady, but it is important that that roundtable includes representatives from the Scottish Government, because they need a separate legislative response for the solutions suggested.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
I thank the Minister for that clarity and hope that the hon. Lady is concluding her remarks.
Shabana Mahmood
I am, Mrs Main. I am not an expert on how these matters play out in devolved Administrations, but they obviously need a voice because they face different regimes. I will take up the Minister’s offer, and I hope we will get to have greater knowledge about shisha establishments, the impact they can have and how best they can be regulated.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered reforming the regulation of shisha lounges.
Affordable Credit for People on Low Incomes
(6 years 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
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of affordable credit for people on low incomes.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, although I hope it will be not just a pleasant time, but a very productive one. We are anxious to leave plenty of time for the Minister to reply because we want, and hope, to make progress with the debate. I address him as an hon. Friend, because in this debate I am drawing information from Feeding Britain, a charity that he, I and other MPs from different parties set up. This debate on the provision of affordable credit for people on low incomes draws on the experiences of groups around the country that are part of the Feeding Britain network. I thank those involved in the network, whose information I draw upon, but particularly the parents and grandparents who have provided information for this debate.
As I gave him much of the information beforehand, the Minister knows that there is far too much to cite in this debate from people in the Feeding Britain network who want to have their say. I will instead focus on an everyday story of Provident. I do not know whether it worries about Salisbury, but Provident is putting out these leaflets in the Wirral, personally addressed, and on the front are pictures of a little girl and the words, “The look on her face”, “Decorating grandad” and “Visiting loved ones”, all playing on the feeling of exclusion that many poor people feel all the time, but especially at Christmas.
Behind those leaflets there is a carefully targeted business plan, because certainly Provident stepped up its activities with the beginnings of the roll-out of universal credit. Officers of Provident were knocking on doors with application forms in one hand and fistfuls of money in the other, asking whether people wanted to sign up or needed a loan, knowing that while we still have difficulties with universal credit today, we certainly had mega-difficulties when it was first rolled out in Birkenhead.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Particularly with people facing problems such as universal credit, does he share my concern that a growing number of people—I think it has gone up by 300,000 in the last year—rely on credit to pay for everyday essentials? That is hugely unsustainable, and we need to look at mixed alternatives.
Frank Field
Indeed; we will try to draw the Minister on that. Part of the leaflet concerns short-term loans, saying that the APR is 535.3%; I hope Members of Parliament know what APR—annual percentage rate—is. I will not press the question, but the Minister has one degree from Oxford and one from Cambridge, so I wonder, if we were looking at a £300 loan and had to pay it back within three months, what the loan would cost and what the rate of interest would be. I am not going to pause; I will give the answers. It is one of those very easy quiz games, but a horror quiz game, because if the repayment is over three months, Provident wants £429 back at an annual interest rate equivalent to 1,557.7%. That is just one example. Constituents borrowing £350 and paying it back over 12 months have to pay back £655.20.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for all the hard work he does and the high regard in which he is held in this House when it comes to poverty issues for people across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not just in Birkenhead. I thank him for that. Does he agree that there must be a viable alternative to the payday loans he is referring to? Could the credit union, which is growing in my constituency and has been extremely helpful to people on low incomes, be the safe and regulated alternative, bearing in mind that it encourages responsible lending and responsible saving hand in hand?
Frank Field
I totally agree with that. I suggest that there is no silver bullet. Clearly, credit unions have a part to play, but they are not as thriving in Birkenhead as they are in others parts of the country. Therefore, we need a whole strategy of policies, so that the geographical chance of life neither protects people nor leaves them vulnerable and unprotected. If someone has a really good, strong credit union and they are a member of it, that is good news, but if there is no credit union, or if their pattern of behaviour does not easily fit into what the credit union requires, it is difficult for them. I want to draw the Minister on that later in the debate.
The leaflets that are now going out in our constituencies claim that there are no late payment fees. I am pleased to be able to say that, unlike other companies that lend people money when they are extremely vulnerable, there is no evidence at all that the people coming for repayment come with baseball bats to enforce that repayment. But of course, Provident has another strategy, so it does not have to do that. To use another example, one of the volunteers in the Feeding Britain network tells us that one of her friends who got close to paying off her debt with Provident was immediately offered another loan. If someone has problems repaying, they are offered other loans, so the loans mount up and become very substantial, and if they are towards the end, Provident tries to make it part of their working-class economy that they should have loans, by suggesting that they should take another loan.
I thought that, before I come to what I would like to see as part of the Government’s strategy, I would talk about the hard sell. One mother went on to the website to see what the loans prospects were. Having merely gone on to the website, she said that she was being called up eight times a day until she took out a loan. There is quite a hard sell here. As well as picking on areas that are vulnerable because universal credit is being rolled out and picking on the vulnerable areas across the country in periods such as Christmas and the summer holidays, there is a real danger that merely inquiring about a loan means that people then get the hard sell.
What about the strivers? For example, we had two people in work and two children who borrowed £100 from Birkenhead, and they were anxious about paying bills and feeding those children. They ended up having to pay back a few pennies less than £500. We have also seen the Scarlet Pimpernel effect in Birkenhead. If someone googles loans, Google throws up, in the first instance, those loan companies that are likely to cost them the most to borrow from. Will the Minister look at whether there is a case for saying that Google should display what we could all agree are the best companies to deal with, not those with the highest charges?
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Frank Field
I will happily give way to an ex-member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions.
James Cartlidge
I very much enjoyed serving, up to the time of the general election, on the Select Committee chaired by the right hon. Gentleman. He has great passion in this area and has just made a really interesting point. What would concern me about online advertising is this. Probably these companies are simply purchasing through the Google Ads algorithm; I imagine that there is very little way for them to have the sort of control described, but it is an extremely good point that the companies charging the most interest will have the biggest budgets to pay for Google ads and so on, which almost inevitably means that they will come near the top. We should look at that; it is a very good point.
Frank Field
That is a really good point, and the Minister is nodding, so I know that we are going to get action on it. I am immensely grateful for that intervention.
Let me take another website—Doorstep Loans in Birkenhead. It aims specifically at single parents. It says, “We understand your position. We can help you through a loan.” It says to those who are unemployed, “We understand your position and the particular problems you have. What about a loan from us to help there?” It says to those with a bad credit score, “What about a loan to you?”, knowing that they cannot get one from elsewhere. Those with disabilities are also lined up for special treatment.
Let me switch to Leicester, which has also given us some information. One pensioner took out a loan to help to buy Christmas presents. She is now repaying £100 a month for that loan. That is hardly a good prospect for her—it is a very large part of her pension. Derbyshire, too, shows a really worrying trend. Provident went to one of those houses that are known to have young people in supported accommodation, who are very vulnerable, and managed to sign up every person in the house for a minimum of a £100 loan.
Putting fires out is part of the Minister’s job, but so is thinking creatively about the future, as he has always done on Feeding Birkenhead, so may I put before him the idea of a citizens’ bank? It would not be a silver bullet; it would be part of many other things. If we had asked poor people to help to design universal credit, none of them would have said, “I work to a five-week month or a four-week month for payments.” They would have said, “This benefit needs to be designed for me, which means daily payment or weekly payment.” I very much hope that we could take things a stage further and include poor people in designing the bank, so that it would be a bank that they wanted. I hope that we can pick up the hon. Gentleman’s idea, which was in the Budget, about interest-free loans. I hope that we could sign up the Department for Work and Pensions so that users of the bank would make agreements for loans that they paid back in a manageable way—paid back, with their agreement, from benefit—so that there would be a minimum element of bad debt.
As we all know, Wonga said that it had to charge 5,000% because of the bad loans that it had. It had many bad loans precisely because it was charging 5,000%. I think that if we could eliminate from the system people who cannot pay and the few who will not pay, we would have a very different, and viable, model. My plea to the Minister today is this. Might people who are interested be able to come and talk to him further on the idea that I have described? Might we also not exempt the banks from their responsibilities? Many of my constituents have problems because of the way that the banks behave. The situation is pretty bad: the banks give large sums of money—thank God—to their foundations, and those foundations give out money to projects to undo some of the damage that the banks themselves cause. I therefore hope that this is the opening of another chapter on how we get decent banking systems that fit the moral economy of life for working-class people, rather than roughing them up.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. It is not normal, in a half-hour debate, for hon. Members to speak unless they have sought the permission of the mover of the motion and the Minister. Is the Minister happy for other Members to speak at this point?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Yes, as long as I have a bit of time.
Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir David. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) for securing this debate to highlight some of the appalling and exploitative lending practices that target many of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Despite the welcome demise of big payday lenders such as Wonga, people without enough to get by remain over-exposed to manipulative lending practices. A leading debt charity found that an estimated 1.4 million people used high-cost credit for everyday household costs in 2017; the figure was up from 1.1 million in 2016. High-cost credit keeps many trapped in a vicious cycle of indebtedness just to make ends meet. It is a scandal that those who are least able to afford it are left with no choice other than to accept the highest lending rates.
With in-work poverty on the rise, the Government must do more to reform the broken credit model and tackle the persistent debt spiral into which many working families have fallen. As I have witnessed in my constituency of Warrington South, credit unions constitute a commendable community initiative that seeks to prevent other people from falling into the trap of high-cost borrowing; but without substantial Government support, such alternatives struggle to address the problem fully. Often, low-income households are unaware of or unable to access affordable credit provision in their local area or nationally.
The Government must commit to a comprehensive long-term programme to expand the provision of community lending to ensure that those struggling to make ends meet can access alternatives to high-cost credit. At present, the Government appear simply to be making matters worse. I have been contacted by several constituents who have had to take out loans as a consequence of the Government’s disastrous implementation of universal credit—a flagship Government social security policy. Provision of access to affordable credit is a potential lifeline to many.
I hope that the Government will begin to take a proactive approach to solving this critical issue. It involves not just payday lenders like Wonga, but banks and building societies. There is a huge difference between interest rates for someone borrowing £1,000 and someone borrowing £20,000. The interest rates are so different: they range from 20% to 6%. We need to do something about that and ensure that provision is appropriate and affordable for people in need.
Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)
I think that the Minister wants about 10 minutes to respond to the debate. Is that right?
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for letting me speak, Sir David. Do not worry: I promise I will be quick. I rise simply, and possibly at my own risk, to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field)—I admire him immensely for his work on poverty and perhaps, given the time of year, he can be the ghost of Christmas yet to come for the Minister—because there is a silver bullet in this circumstance. All of us deal with people in our communities who are struggling because there is too much month at the end of the money and are borrowing to put food on the table, to keep a roof over their head and to put petrol in their car to get to work. They need us to recognise the lessons of payday lending—the lessons of those interest rates. It is not about the decimal point; it is about hooking people into debt.
I know the Minister knows this in his heart. I know he recognises that payday lending is not the only spectre hanging over Christmas for people this year. Indeed, in our country now, people are better protected when taking out a payday loan than when they are using many of the other forms of credit. My right hon. Friend talked about Provident. Provident takes many incarnations in this country. Vanquis credit cards are pushed in my local community; Vanquis is also owned by Provident. Credit cards in this country are the new form of unaffordable debt for so many. The rates of interest, especially on the credit cards targeting people on a low income or with a bad credit history, lead them into higher levels of debt than they would get into with a payday loan. Guarantor loans rip apart communities and families as people get into debt and then have to tell someone else, who has guaranteed the loan, that they have got into debt. The companies are chasing two people at the same time for the same loan.
All those examples, all those scenarios, are things that we could stop if we learned the lessons of payday lending. Wonga may not exist now, but the industry carries on in this country. It has gone from 400 to 150 companies, but the point is that it is not pushing people into debt in the way that it was two or three years ago—when it caused the concern that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) now express for other forms of credit in this country.
I know that the Financial Conduct Authority has ruled out bringing in a cap for all forms of credit, but I again ask the Minister: how much more evidence do we need about these companies and the way they are evolving before we learn the lessons of payday lending?
In the Financial Times this week, the owners of Amigo Loans boasted about how the lack of regulation and the changes in regulation have benefited their industry. By not capping all forms of credit, in essence, we are pushing people into other forms of high-cost credit and towards other legal loan sharks. How much longer do our communities have to suffer? The truth is that they are suffering. I am a Labour and Co-op MP, so I would love to see more credit unions, but they cannot compete with such companies and their rapacious behaviour, or with the way they have evolved to evade legislation.
We need comprehensive legislation. Please, let us not have another year of the Minister and me arguing, yet again, about the benefits of that silver bullet. There is no single better thing that we could do than cap the cost of all forms of credit in this country to give an even playing field, to make sure that the banks treat people fairly, to make sure that all forms of new credit treat people fairly, and to give our communities hope for 2019 when their wages do not match up.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) for raising this important issue, which, as he knows, I have been passionate about since our days of setting up Feeding Britain. We went to South Shields and Salisbury to look at the experience of people using food banks. We even travelled to Paris together to try to get some inspiration for how to get the right model—
John Glen
Absolutely. I really want to make progress on the issue during my time as Economic Secretary, and in my response I will draw attention to some of the measures that have been taken.
I also had the pleasure of working with the right hon. Gentleman on the Select Committee. The assiduous way that he has pursued the challenges that people on low incomes face is legendary across the House. The whole House admires his efforts.
I want to get to the heart of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues about the conduct of Provident, as have five other hon. Members. We also had a conversation earlier this week. I recognise that he sees a citizens bank as playing two roles—first, ensuring that the poorest members of society can access core banking services, and secondly, providing credit to those people to help them to smooth their income, spread costs over time and cope with unexpected financial shocks. I will address each of those in turn.
I will set out how the progress that the Government have made on ensuring access to core financial services such as bank accounts has been achieved. The nine largest personal current account providers in the UK are legally required to offer a basic bank account to customers who are unbanked. Those accounts must be fee-free and must not have an overdraft facility.
The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the key issue of the need to access affordable credit. The Government’s vision is for a well-functioning and sustainable consumer credit market that can responsibly meet the needs of all consumers. I think there is some agreement on that vision on both sides of the House.
I recognise that we face a playing field that is not level. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and other hon. Members raised the point about advertising budgets, which is why one of the Budget announcements seeks to tackle the barriers faced by key partners such as housing associations to referring people to sources of affordable credit. The default setting is to find a better option than some of those that can be found on Google.
James Cartlidge
Has the Minister considered speaking to Google and other companies about that? It is a good point that it is very difficult to police the robot algorithm that sets up their adverts. I do not see how he can do that unless he speaks to the companies themselves.
John Glen
I am happy to take on that suggestion. I will look into what we can do as part of the challenge we also set in the Budget to introduce technical solutions to try to level that playing field and to make community development financial institutions such as Scotcash, which I visited in Glasgow in September, more accessible earlier in that process.
On Financial Conduct Authority regulation, I will try to address the points raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who has raised the matter in the House previously. There was a review in May, although she does not agree with all its conclusions. Since the review, I have had more conversations about Amigo Loans and other issues, such as what can be done to monitor and to provide the evidence. In the interests of responding to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, I will not carry on, but I do not want to be flippant about the serious concerns of the hon. Member for Walthamstow.
The FCA governs the rules about the provision of credit and is responsible for the regulation of consumer credit. It is a robust regulator, which I always encourage to be even more robust. It has the tools to take swift, effective action against improper practices. My regular dialogue with the chief executive, Andrew Bailey, and the director of strategy and competition, Christopher Woolard, covers that topic, and I know that high-cost credit is a priority for them.
The right hon. Gentleman specifically highlighted a number of worrying examples of high-cost credit lenders in Birkenhead. I listened with concern and serious dismay to the impact of those practices on vulnerable consumers. I hope the action that the FCA is undertaking in relation to lenders, as part of its broader review of the high-cost credit market, will have some impact.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Provident. The FCA is consulting on new rules and guidance specifically for home-collected credit firms. I will draw its chief executive’s attention to this debate. The rules will include requirements for firms to clearly explain the costs of a new loan compared with the cost of refinancing an existing one, and guidance stating that firms cannot visit customers to offer new loans without an explicit request from the customer.
The provision of affordable credit is a multifaceted problem and there is no single solution to overcome it. It is not sufficient to simply tighten regulation for high-cost lenders. Therefore the Government are desperately keen, and have taken steps, to ensure that low-income consumers can access safe, affordable and sustainable credit. In our civil society strategy, we announced that £55 million of funding from dormant assets would be directed towards addressing the problem of access to affordable credit and alternatives.
In the autumn Budget at the end of October, the Chancellor announced a package of measures to support affordable lending, including a prize-linked savings scheme to encourage the growth of the credit union sector. Although the sector is variable in quality, as has been discussed, there are opportunities to expand it. Another measure is an affordable credit challenge fund to encourage the UK’s vibrant FinTech sector to solve the challenges that I just discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk. A further measure is a change in the regulatory boundary to allow registered social landlords to offer their tenants better community lenders. A final measure is a feasibility study into a no-interest loan scheme, and a pilot of that scheme.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead is absolutely right that banks have a responsibility to assist and facilitate better solutions in this area. Earlier this year, we took through the House the single financial guidance body, which will be a huge partner in working—I hope—with the banks, which often have worthwhile initiatives that are piecemeal and not joined-up. My vision, which is very similar to his, is of the banks coming together to recognise that, across the country, there are pockets of poverty and deprivation that need a new solution, which involves pooling their expertise and endeavour and working closely with the single financial guidance body to deliver a better set of options and outcomes for the constituents for whom he has been fighting so earnestly for 40 years.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He and other hon. Members have raised some significant issues that I take to my heart and back to my office. I hope I have offered him some reassurance by setting out the comprehensive and concerted actions that the Government have taken with the FCA to address the challenges in this area. I am clear that the Government are on a journey to actively and comprehensively support vulnerable borrowers. I want to continue to work with him, and other hon. Members from both sides of the House, using the knowledge and expertise that exists, to come up with even better solutions to deal with a real problem in some communities in this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Gender Pay Gap
(6 years 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
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the gender pay gap.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I feel very greedy for having just intervened in the last debate and now having my own debate, but both debates are on matters that are close to my heart, because both make a big difference to our local communities.
I mean no disrespect to the Minister present—the Minister for Women—but I see this subject as a matter for the Treasury first and foremost, because I think that closing the gender pay gap is one of the most positive economic policies that we could have in this country, given the benefits that it would bring to our country as a whole. We have spent the past eight years, since I was first elected to this House, arguing about austerity—I know that there are different views on it, but Labour Members are pretty clear that it has not been a good economic policy. There are probably different views across this Chamber as to whether Brexit is a good economic policy—many of us are certainly concerned about the impact on our economy—but I hope there is agreement across the House that closing the gender pay gap would have a positive impact on our economy.
For me, it is interesting and telling that we do not see this matter first and foremost as one of economics. That is one of the challenges we have to address, because we know that closing the UK’s gender pay gap would add £150 billion to our GDP in the next couple of years and that an extra 840,000 women would be added to the UK workforce. Those figures reflect what the gender pay gap really is: untapped talent in our society. Given that we have gone through the horrors of austerity and we appear to be going through the horrors of Brexit, never more have we needed positive economic policies that tap into that talent, to help us try to redress the balance. To the person who tweeted me earlier this afternoon, saying that in debating the gender pay gap I may as well be debating “unicorns”, I say that today the “unicorns” are in the main Chamber, in relation to Brexit. This debate is very much a reality.
The gender pay gap is a reality that we have always known existed; we have always had data to show a general gender pay gap in this country. We know from the annual survey by the Office for National Statistics that the average gap is about 13%. However, what has changed in this debate in the last year has been the data about particular companies, busting open the argument in people’s workplaces and revealing to them the variations between different sectors. It has shown that 78% of companies in this country that have more than 250 employees are paying the men they employ more than the women—that is on average, so it is not just about individual men and women. That is a systematic undervaluing by those companies and organisations of the women who work for them, and of the possibilities that they could bring to their company or organisation.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I am delighted that the hon. Lady has secured this debate and it is a pleasure to join her in it. I was on the Delegated Legislation Committee that considered the Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017 and put them through. I was surprised, as I am sure she was, that the bar was set at 250 employees. I know that is a good start, but does she agree that some of the biggest challenges are in the small and medium-sized companies that have fewer than 250 staff, and that it would be fantastic to hear at least an expression of willingness from the Government Benches to extend that legislation as soon as possible?
Stella Creasy
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. At the moment, only about 60% of the British workforce are covered by that legislation, so when we talk about understanding the gender pay gap in this country, we still have 40% of the gap to understand. I will come on to that issue later because, like her, I am impatient and, also like her, I have a passion for that piece of legislation.
We should honour all of the parliamentarians involved in this, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), whose determination to get the Equality Act 2010 through set us on course to where we are today. Sometimes her contribution to this process is forgotten, perhaps by Members who are new to the House. Anyone who has ever dealt with her on these issues knows full well how passionate she is about them and everyone should recognise that.
The variation within sectors is also pretty telling for us, in terms of the kinds of experiences that women in our country—our constituents—might face.
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
On that point about looking at different sectors, I used to work in the third sector—the charity sector—which people often refer to as “the women’s sector.” However, when we look at the top and at the management, we see that it is not reflective of the sector at all. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a big issue?
Stella Creasy
Completely. One of the things that is so powerful about this data is that no sector—public, private or third—is immune from critique, because frankly none of them is valuing women in the way they could. That is reflected in how they pay them, how they promote them and how they work with them.
I am very struck by some of the brands that make a point of selling to women. After all, the one place where women have the majority of power in our society is in their purchasing power, as we account for 70% of purchases in this country. Yet those brands that make a virtue about selling to women are often the ones that, when we look at their pay gap, are some of the worst in this regard. I would not necessarily have put Sports Direct up there as champions of feminism, but its gap is 6%. Contrast that with Sweaty Betty, which has a 62% variation; with Monsoon, which has a 36% variation; or with Boux Avenue, which sells lingerie and has a 75% variation. Even when we are buying those companies’ products, they are not necessarily using the money to pay their women employees equally.
Many people have rightly challenged the data about the gender pay gap. After all, there were only four measures, so I agree that the data is a blunt tool. There are certainly things about the data that I would like to know more about. However, my argument today is that just because the data is not perfect does not mean it is not powerful. I absolutely agree that we need to understand much more than just gender when it comes to inequality in the workplace, the undervaluing of talent and what that means for our economy. It certainly means that we need to understand whether we can get better data on how black and ethnic minority employees are treated in the workplace. We know that the full-time pay gap for black African women is 19%, and that for Pakistani and Bangladeshi women it is 26%. That is in contrast to the general gender pay gap of 18%. Black male graduates earned a whopping £7,000 less per year than their white counterparts in the past 10 years. One of the things we know is that although black men have been more likely to invest in higher education than their white counterparts, they are less likely to have benefited from it in their pay packets. That is an interesting challenge for us.
This data also does not tell us about part-time work, which is absolutely crucial for women because, at 73%, the majority of part-time workers in our country are women. We know that there is a gender pay gap within the data for part-time work, but it is not as clearcut as the one within the data for full-time work, which is the data that we have for these individual companies. The data also does not tell us about age. For many people, understanding the difference of the gender pay gap, and therefore understanding what is driving it, is crucial when it comes to age. People presume that the gender pay gap is something that happens later in life. Actually, we are already seeing a gender pay gap building up with graduates, within 18 months of them entering the workforce. Again, that tells us that the gender pay gap is not necessarily what people think it is.
Also, in relation to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley), the public sector cannot lecture the private sector in this regard. When we look at the NHS, we see that 77% of its employees are women but it still has a substantial gender pay gap. That should tell us—as the people in charge of public services—something about our ability to value women and their worth in the workplace. Indeed, the private sector pay gap has decreased, from 20% to 16%, while the public sector pay gap has widened to 13.9% in the past five years.
The data also does not tell us what difference getting qualifications makes. Again, when we go on to consider what might be causing the gender pay gap, people make presumptions about the impact of training and qualifications. Actually, when we look at the data, we see that it is not necessarily the case that women who have been educated to a higher level, such as degree level, are being paid more. Indeed, despite more women being educated to a higher level, there has been little or no change in the gender pay gap between groups of workers qualified to a degree level since the early 1990s. We also see a gender pay gap when it comes to apprenticeships. For level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships, women earned an average of £6.85 an hour, compared with the average for men, which was £7.10 an hour.
One of the things that is so powerful about this data is that, because it is so localised to particular companies, it helps people understand what is happening directly to them in a way that a general statistic does not. I have met the Minister to talk about one of the challenges in this regard: when the data was published in April this year, what impact did it actually have on the ground? I ask that because it is one thing for us here in this House to analyse the data and maybe call to account those firms that sell to women without paying women properly, but it is another thing to talk to our constituents about their experiences of what the data shows about their workplace.
Therefore, when the data was published, a cross-party group of MPs put together an anonymous survey called #PayMeToo to try to understand the experiences of women at the coalface. As the Minister knows, the responses were pretty shocking. People often say, “Data is a great disinfectant. Publish the numbers and that will drive change.” The data from the #PayMeToo survey shows that we might be publishing the data, but we are certainly not telling women to talk about it, and those women trying to talk about it in their workplaces face a hostile environment—I hesitate to use that phrase, but it is very clear from the responses we got.
Women were being told that that was just the way it is; that they work in sectors where there are not any women, so why would they expect women to be paid the same as men? They were being told by HR departments that they should bury the data; that they should not be difficult; that they needed to raise a grievance if they wanted to talk about those issues. They were being told that they could get a pay rise, but it would not be equal to that of their male colleagues, because it was about trying to manage the impact of the fuss that was being created. They were recognising that their companies were using what they called “very creative reporting” to try to minimise the gender pay gap, and so pretend that the issue was not happening. They were being told, “Don’t worry. Next year we will employ some more lower-paid men, and that will sort the problem.”
One of the things that I hope the Minister will commit to is following up that data and gathering it herself next year, when the second lot of data comes out. It should not be up to MPs to try to grab these qualitative pieces of research, when what consistently comes back to us speaks of the hostility that women face regarding the impact of this data; of just how sensitive it is for people to talk about what they earn in this country; and of the presumptions and cultures behind the gender pay gap, which we have to deal with.
Let us try to deal with some of those presumptions. At the moment, it is true that we have only half the story with the data, and many commentators both online and offline, including in The Spectator—I am sure Toby Young is watching—will try to fill in the rest of the blanks for us. They tell us that it is about women and their lifestyle choices—bluntly, that women have kids, therefore they want to work flexibly and to take time out, so of course they are going to be paid less.
Stella Creasy
As my hon. Friend says, her husband has kids. She pre-empts what I am going to say: this is not about women, but about parenting. One of the challenges for us is to support both parents to be equally culpable for the child that they have created, including looking after that child, because that is one of the things that would help women in the workplace. There is an impact on women’s earnings when they become parents, but there is not as much of a gap for fathers. For mothers the pay gap is 30%; for fathers it is around 10%. We also recognise from figures provided by the Office for National Statistics that having children can only account for a third of the variation in gender pay. One of the things we have to nail in this debate, if we are to close the gender pay gap and get that economic benefit, is the idea that this is all about having kids. A big chunk of the variation cannot be explained by childcare or caring commitments.
The second thing people say is, “This is about women putting themselves forward. Women do not ask for pay rises; women do not seek promotion; women do not want to be in charge.” Thankfully, we also have research showing that is simply not the case—that, as much as we might admire her in many other ways, Sheryl Sandberg is wrong. This is not about leaning in; this is about systematic discrimination against women in the workplace. An Australian study. Clearly shows that men and women ask for pay rises, just as much as each other, but that men are four times more likely to get one. That is the same for men and women of similar attainment or qualifications, and for men and women of certain ages. Let us stop blaming women for the gender pay gap, because it is not their fault; it is the fault of the environment they are working in.
That environment is what we need to tackle, and that is not just about getting a few more well-paid women at the top—although, if we are honest, we have seen over the past eight years that that is not going brilliantly either. Britain’s public companies will need to appoint women to 40% of their board positions over the next two years if they are to meet the voluntary target that the Government have set, and 100 companies in the FTSE 350 have either no women or just one woman on their board. However, if I am honest, it is not women at the top who I am really concerned about, because the vast majority of the gender pay gap is about low pay and women. It is about the value that we attribute to certain sectors, and the fact that those sectors are dominated by women. The silent majority in this country that we need to speak up for is not the women who we are going to see on the back page of the Financial Times. This is not about getting a few more women in top positions, although some companies have worked out that that would skew their figures; this is about the millions of women working in jobs that are systematically undervalued and underpaid.
We see a lower pay gap within low-paid industries, but we still see a pay gap. Over one in five female workers are low paid, earning less than two thirds of a typical hourly wage or just £8.55 an hour, compared with just 14% of men. That silent majority needs us to recognise that challenging the gender pay gap, and getting the better productivity and the economic benefits of doing so, comes about through how we think about those industries. It comes about through how we think about progression and flexible working within them, and not taking no for an answer; not thinking that this is somehow just about women being more confident or more articulate, or even a bit of anti-bias training, welcome though it would be.
Danielle Rowley
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic and powerful speech. Some 80% of administrative and secretarial staff tend to be women, and when a construction company in my constituency of Midlothian went bust, the men who were the engineers and had the manual jobs found further employment quite quickly. However, the women who were in the admin roles did not, and found themselves unemployed. Does she agree that is another issue that is creating gender inequality in the workplace, on top of the gender pay gap?
Stella Creasy
Absolutely. One of the things I want to come on to is the rise in self-employment, and in particular how that affects a lot of women who have lost their jobs in industries where self-employment is now the norm. A lot of our equal pay legislation and gender pay work is out of date because of the way in which people are now working, and I would love to hear the Minister’s thoughts on whether we need an equal pay Act for the 21st century that can take account of what a comparator is for somebody who is self-employed. Certainly, for a lot of those women, that will be a live issue.
Equal pay is still a problem. The Equal Pay Act 1970 is older than I am, but we know that women are still facing basic problems in being paid the same as men to do the same jobs. We know that the 84% drop in the number of cases is more to do with the cuts in legal aid than with an end to the problem, as the legal cases involving the BBC and Asda prove all too well. However, the gender pay gap is not illegal; it is just immoral and, frankly, inefficient. That is the issue that we have to get right, because it is an issue that our competitors are getting right.
That is the third thing that I want to say to the Minister. We can argue about the data—I press her to improve the quality of the data we get with the second lot in 2019, because there is more we can do—but data is not enough. Indeed, the data and the reaction to it shows that people are quite comfortable with the idea that we should have a gender pay gap, in a way that they would not be comfortable with poor productivity in their firms. We have to change that culture, and when our competitors are doing that we have a real problem.
Hannah Bardell
On the matter of culture, does the hon. Lady agree that the erroneous and inappropriate misuse of non-disclosure agreements is making a massive contribution to poor culture, with women particularly being silenced, resulting in the suppression and oppression of women and their voices in the workplace?
Stella Creasy
I absolutely agree. Indeed, that hostility to women’s voices being heard at all is one of the things that has come out of the #PayMeToo data. The fact that someone is powerful and has the money to silence someone else does not mean that that person’s voice should not be heard. I will support any of the measures on non-disclosure agreements that I know the Select Committee on Women and Equalities is looking at, not just about sexual harassment but about harassment in the workplace, because it is clear from the data we are getting that women do not feel able to come forward and do not feel protected. Indeed, when we see the BBC—a major public employer—trying to silence women, what message does that send to women who want to talk about equal pay?
We can learn lessons from our competitors. We can learn from Iceland, which has brought in some very serious fines to make sure that there is enforcement of equal pay. It is no good having legislation if there are no real teeth to enforce it. In Germany, employees can now get the details of six of their colleagues’ pay so that they can do a direct comparison, which has had a big impact on changing conversations about the worth of women in the workplace.
However, I am also here to say to the Minister that time is up for asking nicely, because we have been asking nicely for some time for these issues around pay and progression to be dealt with, and the pace of change is glacial. When our competitors in Germany, Belgium, France, and elsewhere across the EU—even in California, for Christ’s sake, which is hardly a bastion of socialist public policy—are introducing quotas and recognising that pushing those quotas helps push the pipeline, the question for us is, “Why do we want to be left behind as a nation?” Left behind we will be, because even if we can struggle to get a few more women on boards to meet that target for 2020, we are not doing anything about that pipeline. We are not doing anything fundamental to ensure that the talent that exists on the shop floor that is currently underpaid is being picked up and fast-tracked. That would help change the country.
That matters because of the economic impact of failing to pick up that talent. It matters when we hear companies saying that when it comes to promoting women, “Most women don’t want the hassle or pressure of sitting on a board.” Of course, we know that women do not deal well with pressure, obviously. They say, “All the good women have already been snapped up. That’s why you can’t find them,” or, “We already have one woman, so that’s enough, surely.” Of course, all women can be represented by one woman on a board. They say, “Shareholders just aren’t interested in this issue.” Frankly, if shareholders are not interested, they are not watching the world or their bottom line.
A global analysis of more than 2,000 companies showed that companies with women in at least 30% of leadership positions had profits that were on average 15% higher. If shareholders are not pushing for and demanding change, clearly they do not want to make any money, but that is what is happening now. We can keep asking nicely and trying to improve the data, but even if we improve the data there is that comfort with having a gender pay gap that means our economy is going to be held back, and that needs to change.
We should be asking about part-time work and whether we need to lower the threshold, at least from 250 to 100 employees. We should hold to account those companies that try to avoid putting in their partnership data, and we should get the data on black and ethnic minority employment and disability within our workplace. But we should also make a commitment that we will act, and acting means doing what our competitors are doing. It means setting some clear targets and having consequences for those firms that fail to act.
We know that next April we might see data that is a little bit better. After all, they will have had a year to try to figure out how to game the system, but gaming the system does not get the economic benefit. Let us stop apologising for wanting to close the gender pay gap and start demanding that we do, because this country cannot afford not to. What will the Minister do to ensure that the data we get next year is better, clearer and more diverse? What does she think is the appropriate timescale to keep asking nicely? Will she commit to when we might bring in quotas if we do not see change? She will find friends and champions across the House if she does. I also know that if she does not, Britain will not get the productive workers it needs. Blaming women for the problem will not help our economy. Helping ensure that every firm, every public sector organisation and every charitable organisation makes the best use of its staff will give this country the brighter future that the Prime Minister claims she wants. We want more than one woman at the top; we want many. That is what Britain deserves.
Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)
I want to get to the Front Benchers by 5 o’clock. There is only one Member standing, but there is not much time in a one-hour debate.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Thank you, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on securing this debate and on her speech, which she delivered with characteristic passion and peppered with huge quantities of data. I start by reflecting that the gender pay gap is at an historic low of 8.9%. We should acknowledge that, but also that it persists—we do not want it to persist; we want it to close and to end up without a gender pay gap—and that practically, most women’s incomes are still hit by having children.
When I was a new mum, I was lucky; I had a supportive employer that allowed me to work flexibly. It was working hard to encourage women to stay at work, having children, and to move up the organisation. I benefited from that, but I recognise that a huge number of women do not have that. In fact, only 11% of jobs that pay more than £20,000 are advertised with flexible working as an option, while the demand is estimated to be closer to 90%. That means that many women are not able to continue working in the job they were working in, and have to make choices that are not the ones they want to make. We know that by the time a couple’s first child is aged 20, mothers are earning on average nearly a third less than fathers.
Jess Phillips
Does the hon. Lady agree that one way we could stop some of these problems with the gap between men and women would be to pay men more to stay off work? If we gave men 90% of their pay for the first six weeks of their baby’s life, as we do with women, it might encourage a different atmosphere. Does she agree?
Helen Whately
I will say a bit more about maternity and paternity pay later, but we absolutely must ensure that it is equally possible for men to take time off work when they become new dads, and that there is a more equal sharing of childcare responsibilities between mums and dads. One reason why that is not happening is that there are financial barriers to doing so.
I acknowledge the work that the Government are doing to tackle the gender pay gap. For instance, last year it was made mandatory for companies with 250 or more employees to report their gender pay gap. There was some speculation at the time as to the difference that would make, and that companies would not bother to comply. I imagine the Minister will confirm this, but my understanding is that there was 100% compliance and that companies did report it, even if it often did not reflect very well on them. That reporting is making a difference. I checked on what my previous employer was doing, because its reporting did not make it look that great. It did a whole report about the actions it was going to try to take to close the gender pay gap on the back of that reporting. If companies across the country are all doing that, that will make a difference. Now that we have had large companies do that, I am keen to see smaller companies do the same.
The headline point is that it makes good economic sense to close the gender pay gap. It makes sense for companies. We know that companies with greater gender equality do better. They perform better for their shareholders, it is good for their reputation and it helps them attract better candidates. When companies are struggling to recruit for the skills they want, clearly they need to ensure that they attract good women as well as good men. Greater gender equality also makes economic sense for the whole country. If we fail to make the most of the capabilities of women, we are failing to make the most of half the country’s workforce.
It is not just about women, however. Making things better for women has knock-on benefits for men, too. I know lots of dads who wish they had been able to spend more time with their children in the early years. Shared parental leave was introduced by the Conservative-led Government in 2014 to enable dads to do exactly that, but as Members have alluded to, there are barriers to men’s taking up paternity leave. There is more to be done to ensure much more equal taking up of maternity and paternity leave, to help dads play that greater role in their children’s early years and mums to keep their careers going.
I welcome the fact that the Government are looking at placing the onus on companies to assess whether a job could be done flexibly, and to make that clear when advertising it, rather than just relying on people—particularly women, but men too—coming forward asking for their job to be flexible. Anecdotally, I have heard that it is men who come across particular barriers when asking for a job to be flexible. We need to address that, too. I would also like to see greater transparency from large companies in publishing their parental leave and pay policies, so that they are absolutely clear to potential job candidates. There is a whole question around maternity discrimination, which we know is illegal, but is still pervasive. Too many women are forced out of work, whether that is having to take maternity leave early because they are pregnant, being made redundant while on maternity leave, or one way or another finding that they are unable to return to the workplace after having children.
Just to sum up, bearing in mind the time, I urge the Government to keep on pushing to close the gender pay gap. I urge them to keep pushing employers, business, the public sector and Parliament itself to do better.
Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)
In a one-hour debate, the mover of the motion gets the opportunity at the end to briefly wind up. I would appreciate it if the Front Benchers would give the hon. Lady that opportunity.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who delivered a characteristically eloquent and detailed speech. I hope that some of the statistics in it get picked up by the media, because they are so stark and so incredible. As she said, the Equal Pay Act 1970 preceded her entry into the world. Clearly legislation can be introduced, or repealed, as in the case of section 28, but that does not necessarily change culture.
It is the duty of any Government and their politicians to ensure that we introduce not only legislation that creates equality, but policies and cultures, and sometimes that requires affirmative action. I am somebody who is avowedly pro quotas. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about Sarah Childs’s report on Parliament. Some of this must start from within. We must hold a mirror up to ourselves and ask whether we are doing enough as politicians, and within our legislatures, to ensure that there is gender equality, and equality across the board.
We are in the 100th year of women’s suffrage, but incredibly, when I was elected in 2015—I know that others in the Chamber were elected that year—there were more men in that Parliament than there had ever been female parliamentarians elected. We should never tire of reminding ourselves of that statistic. We have come a long way. We now have a rainbow Parliament of different cultures, with many people from black and minority ethnic communities, LGBT politicians, and politicians with disabilities, but we still have a very long way to go.
I want to pick up on some of the statistics that the hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned. Some 60% of the British workforce work part time, but she eloquently made the point that women in lower-paid jobs in particular face inequalities. I met representatives of Asda recently, and discussed their equal pay challenge. In fairness to them, they said that they were trying really hard to address it, but the fundamental point was the difference between people who work behind the scenes in warehouses and those who work on the checkouts. Although one job involves more manual labour, the other involves much more emotional labour. That is the crux of the issue: do we really value manual labour over emotional or interpersonal skills and soft skills?
That is something that we sadly lack, across business and across politics. Think about the G20 photo in which Christine Lagarde and our Prime Minister were the only women. We have a global problem with patriarchal structures. It is not about attacking men and saying, “You’re rubbish, you’re not good enough, and you’re to blame for all the problems,” but there is a reality to be faced. If we have so little gender diversity, and so little diversity in the leadership of countries across the world, and collectively in an organisation such as the G20—if only two of those 20 people are women—then we have serious problems.
That brings me to the financial sector. The Independent Evaluation Office, an arm of the International Monetary Fund, published a really interesting report about the run-up to the financial crisis. The report said that two key failures led to the almost complete failure of the regulatory system: No. 1 was groupthink and No. 2 was a reluctance to speak truth to power. The reality was that in the run-up to the financial crisis we had largely men around the table, largely from similar backgrounds, who were unwilling to challenge each other and challenge the groupthink that ensued; and that eventually brought our financial system to its knees.
It is scarcely necessary to open any financial paper any day of the week to see that, Brexit aside, we are heading for another financial crisis. I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow that we should not always couch the argument in financial terms, but we must tailor our message to those who are listening. I was heartened that when the data was released, Martin Gilbert, the chief executive of Standard Life Aberdeen, said:
“I’m welcoming new gender pay gap regulations despite the uncomfortable reading.”
We need to take men with us. We need men to come on the journey.
The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) spoke about paternity and maternity leave, and I agree with so much of what she said. I hope that we can work cross-party on this issue, because men need to have the opportunity to take the time that they would like to take with their partners, to be with their children. They are parents as well. So often we hear men referred to as “baby-sitters”. They are not baby-sitting their own children; they have an equal responsibility.
Very often, having a missing parent of either gender, in terms of that parent being in the workplace, brings about huge challenges and issues for children. I am from a single-parent family. My mother worked full time, and she did a pretty decent job. I know she found it challenging. Whatever make-up a family is, in our modern society we must ensure that our structures encourage those families, and that every workplace, whether in the public or private sector, encourages families to flourish and staff to take the time that they need with their children.
In Scotland, we passed legislation in January 2018 to ensure that we have 50:50 gender representation by 2020 on our public boards. Our gender pay gap is smaller in Scotland; it is only 6.6%, as opposed to the UK gender pay gap of 9.1%. Our First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has done an incredible job, but in Holyrood we still have significant challenges. Interestingly, the gender representation of the press lobby in Holyrood is much worse than that of the UK lobby. That is also an issue. They are the people who report on our politics and help to shape the political arguments. I look up at the press Lobby every week at Prime Minister’s Question Time, and there is a serious lack of diversity, particular regarding gender. We must do everything that we can to close that gap.
The World Economic Forum predicts that it could take 217 years to close the gender pay gap. That is an incredible amount of time. We should not have to wait any longer. We must act, and what I always say to folk when I talk about quotas is that, as much as people may have problems with them, they are a temporary measure to redress the balance. They are not something that any of us want to see over the long term, but whether in politics or in business, they are absolutely the kind of policy that the UK Government and devolved Governments must introduce so that we can have fair representation.
I finish by quoting Talat Yaqoob, the director of Equate Scotland, who said:
“What we can be hopeful of is that the demand for fair representation is growing. Lobby groups, academics and women in parliament will, rightly, be vocal about the need for progress. But the evidence of women’s under-representation, the reasons for that under-representation and the positive impact more women in parliament have, is all well documented. The time now, is…for action. By the next election, we can and must have processes in place for fair representation.”
None of us knows when the next election may come, so now is the time to act. I hope that the Minister will be on board, and on side with us. I am sure that we will be able to work together on these issues to close the gender pay gap, and to ensure that our businesses, our Parliaments, our shop floors and our warehouses are representative of our society.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on securing the debate. It is always great to collaborate with her on the work that she does on women and equalities to try to move the agenda forward.
We have heard some really great speeches today. I think we are almost in agreement that something needs to be done; I suppose it is about how it will be done, and when it will be done. Labour introduced the Equal Pay Act in 1970, but nearly 50 years later we are still discussing unequal pay, and women are still earning less than men. I loved the fact that on 10 November a lot of women put “out of office” messages on their email to show that they work for nothing from that day onwards. I thought about doing that myself, but the consequences would probably have been rather different.
We are still talking about the pay gap. The UK has slipped from 14th to 15th in the ranking of 33 OECD countries based on the five indicators of female economic empowerment. We really need to do better. There is a lot that we can and should do, so there is no excuse for not addressing the problem. After all, 51% of people in the country are women and the other 49% would not be here it were not for women. It is time we made those adjustments rather quickly.
Women have borne the brunt of Government cuts—87%—and everywhere we turn, women are struggling and suffering. My hon. Friend cited some really stark statistics that show that things are continually getting worse. Sometimes there are marginal gains, but they are really far too slow to work. The gap is at its lowest for women aged 18 to 21; I would call that good news, but the gap opens up significantly—to around 26%—for women in their 50s. What could that possibly be down to? Obviously it is a combination of sex and age, and we know that if we add race into the equation, the gap widens.
We need to take into consideration what is at the heart of the gender pay gap: discrimination. A lot of injustices globally are caused by the undervaluing and devaluing of women and the roles they play. The hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) mentioned the issue of manual versus mental labour, which really drives home the point about the jobs women do, the roles we play and the way we are talked about. Our body, our hair, our looks, how we speak, how we walk—all those are additional barriers that men often do not face.
We really need to think intersectionally and look after other women who do not look white or middle-class or have kids. If we are really going to move the agenda at the pace it needs, we have to think about all women, in the round, so that we are not still having this discussion in 50 years’ time. Tackling these issues should be the Government’s main priority. I have sat opposite the Minister many times, and I know that she will say that the Government have done this report and that audit—but audits and reports are just not enough, because they are not getting the job done. We need solid action.
Hon. Members may ask, “What would Labour do?” We will ensure better provision of parental leave and more affordable childcare. We will encourage women and girls to go into male-dominated sectors so that they can achieve high salaries. We will also look at mental versus manual labour—I quite like that concept, so I might nick it from the hon. Member for Livingston.
Hannah Bardell
The hon. Lady is very welcome to nick it; we can share it and make it a cross-party tag line. Does she share my concern about comments from chief executives—particularly in the aviation industry, which has one of the worst pay gaps? Ryanair said that its gender pay gap of more than 70% was just because more men are pilots. We must call that out, but we must also encourage the industry to do more and work with organisations such as the Civil Aviation Authority to make sure that we have more female pilots and better support for women to get into such roles.
Dawn Butler
I absolutely agree. It is easy to reverse those roles; it is a proven fact that women are very calm under pressure, which is one of the traits that pilots need. There is an organisation in the airline industry—I cannot remember which—in which the woman who is chief exec is making great strides in encouraging women to become pilots. Why not? And why not equalise things the other way by having more male cabin crew? I totally agree that silly excuses are made. Men continue to dominate the most senior and best-paid roles. I know that that will take time to change, because they may have been in the job for a while and discrimination has being ongoing for years, but there is no excuse—we must tackle equality.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission estimates that 54,000 mothers a year are forced to leave their jobs early because they are pregnant. It is outrageous that that figure exists. To address such deep-rooted inequalities, we must ensure that we mandate that employers put action plans in place. It is great that employers now have to tell us their gender pay gaps as a result of regulations made under the Equality Act 2010, but they need to do more—just telling us that there is a gender pay gap without doing anything to address it is not enough.
The Government could do more. They could say—as a Labour Government would—that if an organisation pays its employees well and has an agenda to close the gender pay gap, they will ensure that it has access to Government contracts. If not, it should not get a Government contract, because it does not deserve one.
There is so much to be said, but I know that time is short and I am sure that hon. Members from all quarters of the House will secure more debates on the subject. It has been said that it has been very difficult to win the hearts and minds argument on the gender pay gap because companies are often not interested—they just ask what the bottom line is. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow cited a figure of £150 billion that closing the gender pay gap could generate for our GDP. That figure fluctuates, but without a doubt, paying women well will ensure that we add billions to the economy.
The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on securing the debate. We all know how committed she is to this important issue and to gender equality generally. It is a pleasure to discuss it with her in this forum, as it is to meet her behind the scenes to try to get things done.
I also thank other hon. Members for their contributions; I am delighted that so many strong women contributed. I was particularly delighted that the hon. Lady seemed to describe my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) as a unicorn—she said there were discussions about unicorns in the main Chamber and he was on his feet at the time. I will treasure that comment and keep it close to my heart.
This year has been one of milestones: data from the Office for National Statistics shows that the gender pay gap has fallen to a record low; more than 10,000 employers have published data for the first time under the new reporting regulations; and the pay gap became one of the biggest news stories of the year. Those are all indications that the issue has climbed up the agenda, which we know is being translated into conversations in industry and business. People are finally talking about this injustice.
I recently met some senior businesspeople who run some of the most powerful businesses in the country—indeed, the world—to discuss modern slavery. One of them told me, “I was at a meeting in New York recently and, in a room full of investors and businesspeople, we talked about the gender pay gap regulations in the UK.” It is not just us in this country who are having this conversation about the regulations and the injustices they have revealed; other countries and businesses around the world have noticed too. We are under no illusions that this is just the first step, but it is still a huge step forward. Employers across the country are now aware of the challenge that they face, and we are committed to supporting them and tackling the issue together.
I want to start by discussing the women who are perhaps most affected by gender pay gaps—those who are the lowest paid—which is an issue raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. The emphasis has tended to be on well-paid women and on directorships, because we want to get the symbolism right and put the message out there that women can run businesses and so on.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
I commend the Government’s record on trying to narrow the gender pay gap. It was a pleasure for me to address female electricians in this place on Monday. One of the top issues that came up in discussions with them was the engrained workplace cultures that really curb female progression. Can the Minister update us on what she is doing to solve that?
Victoria Atkins
I was at the same event, and a female electrician corrected me by saying that only 1% of electrical engineers are female. As in our earlier discussion about pilots, there is no reason why more electricians and electrical engineers should not be women.
Let me turn to the work we are doing to help the lowest paid. The Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), recently announced that the work of the Government Equalities Office will be broadened to include an explicit focus on low-paid, low-skilled women, who have often been left out of the conversation, despite possibly requiring the most support, given the multiple barriers they face. The message that she wants to give, and which I echo, is that this is not a question of forgetting about directorships or the highest-paid women; this is about multitasking and ensuring that we reflect the whole economy and women’s contributions to it. We know, for example, that the lowest-paid women tend to feature in four industries: retail, childcare, caring and cleaning. We are looking at those sectors to ensure that the figures for the gender pay gap translate into real-life policies that have the greatest impact for the lowest-paid women.
The shadow Minister mentioned some figures quoted by the OECD. She will have to forgive me—obviously I am doing this on my feet—but just to put them in context, we understand that the OECD figures use a different methodology and go much wider than our gender pay gap measures. We are working with colleagues across Whitehall to increase women’s economic empowerment. In terms of Government recruitment, those factors are very much taken into account when we look at contracts. I hope that reassures her.
I turn now to the drivers of the gender pay gap. This is clearly just one of the steps we are taking to tackle the gap; other steps include introducing shared parental leave and pay, and running a £1.5 million campaign to promote the scheme. Hon. Members have made the point about fathers wanting to play a much greater part in raising their children, particularly in the early years. I think there is a lot more that the scheme can and should do. We want to raise awareness of it, so that employers understand the regulations and can ensure that their male employees can contribute to family life in as powerful a way as their female employees do.
Hannah Bardell
I thank the Minister for her extremely positive contribution, which I know will be followed with actions. I have spoken to a number of male constituents who have asked their employer about paternity leave and received quite negative responses. Education and engagement with businesses across the UK is important in enabling men to take paternity leave without facing stigma and discrimination as a result.
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. This is about changing conversations and attitudes in the wider society as much as it is about what we do in this place, which of course is important. Frankly, it is about ensuring that society modernises the way it treats men and women in the workplace. We know that some employers are better than others. I hope that employers who are not doing such a great job will recognise the business reality: given the choice, good people will not want to work for bad employers. This is very much part of us all contributing to the conversation to ensure that employers know how they should treat their workforce.
There is more to supporting people in the workforce. In addition to shared parental leave, we are extending the right to request flexible working. We are creating a £5 million fund to support returners and spending about £6 billion on childcare support by 2019-20. We know that closing the gap will require a collaborative effort from Government and businesses, but I am convinced that, to truly solve this, employers must be the driving force. Every single employer who was supposed to have reported has done so, which means that 10,500 businesses are having conversations—sometimes for the first time—about how they treat women in their workforce.
I absolutely accept what the shadow Minister and others said about the need for action plans. As she knows, we take a slightly different approach to this. I want businesses to come up with their own action plans—indeed, we understand that about 40% of eligible employers have done so. I want to bring businesses with us, but if in due course that does not happen, that option remains open. At this stage, we want the transparency created by reporting figures to be met and addressed further by businesses doing that for themselves through their action plans.
Dawn Butler
Will the Minister consider fining companies that refuse to make action plans or change their way of working, as is the case in Iceland?
Victoria Atkins
That is an interesting idea. As I said, I want to work with businesses on this. The figures suggest that they are getting the message, but we are all impatient for action and for pay gaps to be closed, so that is a very interesting thought.
I am drawing towards the end of my speech. I am conscious of the time and want to give the hon. Member for Walthamstow a minute, so if I may, I will canter through some of the other points raised. Hon. Members have rightly raised the issue of extending the regulations. We have had only one year of reporting, and I urge them to allow us a little more time to assess the impact of the regulations. We need to consider any changes fully, given the impact on the comparability of the data year on year. We want a foundation of data before considering whether or how to change the current requirements. I am conscious of the wish to lower the threshold at which employers have to report. Again, let us have a couple of years of reporting at the higher level and with big companies, which have human resources departments that can deal with this, with the hope that it trickles down—which I know it is—to smaller employers as well.
In order to give the hon. Lady time to respond, I will end by saying that we know that pay gaps are not restricted to gender. That is why the Prime Minister announced a consultation on ethnicity pay reporting in October, setting out a number of questions that need to be resolved to allow meaningful action to take place. We are mindful of those aspects of fairness in the workplace.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow for this fantastic chance to reflect on a truly momentous year on this agenda, and I am extremely grateful to her for her continued interest in this issue.
Stella Creasy
I do not have long. I had asked the Minister whether she would consider the Government Equalities Office doing its own survey of the direct experiences of women of the impact of the data. I again make that plea to her. It is absolutely no use us talking about that here without the data. We did that through the #PayMeToo campaign, which I hope the Government Equalities Office will look at. We know that 9% of organisations submitted data with impossible outcomes; there was 1% with bonus payments of essentially more than 100%, which does not make any sense. There are questions about the data.
The Minister talks about 40% of companies having action plans, which means that 60% do not. We could have several years of trying to refine the data, but fundamentally, women in this country are being underpaid, and our economy is suffering as a result. Please, Minister, do not think that this is just about trying to explain to Ryanair that you do not, frankly, need a penis to fly a plane; this is about what drives change. If it is not quotas, it is not asking nicely—that is what the data tells us. I really hope that she will recognise the change.
Written Statements
Exiting the EU: Publication of Legal Advice
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox)
Following the motion passed yesterday in the House of Commons, I am today placing in the Libraries of both Houses a copy, in full, of the final advice that I provided to Cabinet on 14 November on the legal effect of the withdrawal agreement.
The action responds to the Humble Address motion of the House of Commons passed on 13 November.
The release of this advice does not set a precedent for any future release of Law Officers’ advice. It remains a fundamental constitutional convention that neither the fact, nor the content, of Law Officers’ advice is disclosed outside Government without the Law Officers’ consent. That convention provides the fullest guarantee that the business of Governments is conducted at all times in the light of thorough and candid legal advice, which may also enter into matters of acute sensitivity to the public interest. The Leader of the House of Commons has asked the Committee of Privileges to inquire into the serious constitutional implications of Humble Address motions in such circumstances and I very much hope that it moves to do so as swiftly as possible.
The constitutional tensions created between the expression of the will of the House of Commons by these means on the one hand, and the public interest in the Law Officers’ convention on the other, are not themselves conducive to the proper conduct of public affairs. It is necessary that the public has confidence in the ability of Government and Parliament to work together at a time of national decision-making of the most profound significance. The standing of the House of Commons is also of prime importance. For these reasons, having tested the will of the House twice, the Government will respect their decision and, in these exceptional circumstances and to resolve for the present those constitutional tensions, they have decided, with my consent, to publish this advice.
It is the Government’s purpose and intention that the House will be enabled to address clearly the policy and political decisions now before it, bearing the national interest in mind.
[HCWS1142]
Industrial Strategy
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
As part of the industrial strategy, the Government committed to making the most of the UK’s strengths, so that we are at the forefront of new technologies and emerging industries in the years ahead. The life sciences sector is one of the most important pillars of the UK economy, contributing over £70 billion a year and 240,000 jobs across the country.
In 2017, a wide coalition of industry and charity partners, led by the Government’s life sciences champion Professor Sir John Bell, published an ambitious life sciences industrial strategy to set a clear direction for the future economic growth of the sector. The Government’s response came within only 12 weeks of the strategy’s publication with the very first life sciences sector deal. The deal announced nearly £500 million of Government support and over £1 billion of new inward industry investment, bringing together industry partners from across the sector, charities, a range of Government agencies and the NHS to deliver its bold vision at pace.
One year on, the second life sciences sector deal is going even further, announcing additional measures to secure a global lead in the areas of greatest opportunity for the UK. Taken together with the first sector deal, these programmes are building on existing strengths and putting in place the foundations for future growth needed to develop the ecosystem that allows life sciences to continue to thrive in the UK. The second life sciences sector deal sets out:
In early detection of disease and genomics:
Major investments in the last year from Government and sector partners delivering on our commitment to build on our world-leading assets at UK Biobank, further backed by a new, world-first commitment to sequence one million whole genomes in the UK within the next five years, with an ambition to sequence five million in the same timeframe.
A new commitment, backed by up to £79 million of Government funding, to develop a first-of-its-kind, world-leading longitudinal cohort of healthy participants that will enable scientific research into the hidden signs of disease and the development of diagnostic tools to detect and diagnose diseases earlier.
In digital technologies and data analytics we are:
Laying down the building blocks to realise the full potential of NHS data, while maintaining public trust and maximising the benefits for NHS patients.
Setting out further detail on digital innovation hubs which will provide expert clinical research data services with world-leading data analysis and sharing capabilities—a core part of a wider programme to improve health data infrastructure and support digitally-enabled clinical research.
Detailing progress on five centres of excellence in digital pathology and radiology with AI including the announcement of a further £50 million investment in the programme as a first step towards making this a truly national asset to support early and improved diagnosis across the UK and deliver more efficient NHS services.
In advanced therapies:
Significant support has been allocated from the £146 million leading-edge healthcare package (part of the industrial strategy challenge fund) announced in the sector deal last year to build an impressive end-to-end national infrastructure.
Investors have recognised the strength in UK-grown advanced therapy biotechs and UK companies are scaling up their cell and gene therapy manufacturing facilities.
Wider policy measures are supporting the package, including:
Speeding up and streamlining the UK clinical environment.
Developing a regulatory framework that keeps pace with innovative technologies.
Helping the sector access the skills it needs.
The deal also sets out how we are delivering on our commitment to increase R and D spend in the UK to 2.4% of GDP by 2027. We are improving the uptake of innovation in the NHS, implementing the accelerated access review. This year the NHS will set out through its forthcoming long-term plan and the recently announced medicines pricing agreement, how it will be a crucial national partner and beneficiary of innovations flowing from industry.
Industry partners have responded to commitments from Government with a further wave of their own commitments to the UK, generating well over £1 billion in new investment. These include:
A £1 billion investment by UCB, a world-leading pharmaceutical company, in a new discovery research hub in the UK, including a purpose-built R and D facility, early manufacturing and commercial operations which will support around 650 high-value jobs, many in R and D and early manufacturing, enabling further collaborations with UK universities, biotechs and medical research charities.
Over £200 million of further investments from a wide range of companies, including GW Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Celgene Ltd, IQVIA Ltd and Oxford Biomedica Plc.
The strength of the partnership between the Government, the NHS and the life sciences sector is making the UK a global standard bearer for discovery research and advanced manufacturing. We are committed to continuing the hard work of implementation over the coming years because the prize—a globally leading UK life sciences environment —will deliver huge benefits to the people of this country through a stronger economy and a stronger NHS.
Sector deals, where industries are invited to come forward with plans for their future, embody the ethos of our collaborative approach. They show how industry and the Government, working in partnership, can boost the productivity and earning power of specific sectors.
I am placing a copy of the second life sciences sector deal in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1141]
Health: Branded Medicines Pricing
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Lords) (Lord O’Shaughnessy) has made the following written statement:
Further to my written ministerial statement of Friday 23 November, I am pleased to announce that final agreement has been reached on the 2019 voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access between the Department of Health and Social Care, on behalf of the UK Government representing the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.
The scheme terms are detailed in the documentation for the agreement, a copy of which has been deposited in the Library of the House. The 2019 voluntary scheme has now been agreed by all parties, and will commence on 1 January 2019 for a period of five years.
[HCWS1144]
Justice and Home Affairs Pre-Council Statement
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
The EU Justice and Home Affairs Council of Ministers will meet on 6 and 7 December in Brussels. The Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), will represent the UK for Interior day. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), will represent the UK for Justice day. The Scottish Government Minister for Community Safety, Ash Denham, MSP, will also attend for Justice day.
Interior day on 6 December will begin with a policy debate on the proposed regulation to amend the European border and coast guard regulation. The regulation aims to reinforce the EU’s integrated border management strategy and further protect the external EU borders by providing the European Border and Coast Guard Agency with a standing corps of 10,000 staff with executive powers, dedicated equipment and the remit to act in third countries. This is a Schengen building measure which the UK does not participate in.
The Commission will present a progress report on the proposed recast of the EU returns directive. The UK chose not to participate in the current version of this directive, and has yet to decide whether to participate in this recast.
The presidency will seek agreement to a general approach on the proposed regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online. The UK supports this proposal which seeks to address the threat posed by the high-speed dissemination of terrorist content online. The UK is content with the outcome of negotiations on the regulation and is supportive of the proposed text, and of adoption of this regulation as soon as possible.
In the main Council and over lunch, there will be further debate on the comprehensive approach on migration, and on the reform of the common European asylum system, specifically the issue of solidarity, responsibility and relocation in the context of the Dublin IV proposal. The UK does not participate in the Dublin IV proposal. The Council will also discuss measures to tackle organised immigration crime. The UK supports work to strengthen the EU’s external borders and to intensify relationships with key third countries in order to break smuggling networks and ensure that refuge is given to those who qualify for international protection.
There will also be a policy debate on Justice and Home Affairs: Priorities for the next MFF (2021-27). These programmes will commence after the UK’s exit from the EU and the end of the envisaged implementation period. The UK will not be participating in any future programmes as a member state.
During Justice day on 7 December, the presidency will seek to agree a general approach on the sale of goods directive.
The presidency will be seeking agreement to a general approach on the recast of Brussels IIa, the foundation EU regulation on family law. The proposed text of the recast improves the procedures supplementing the 1980 Hague convention regarding abducted children; the placement of a child in another member state; automatic recognition of judgments, authentic instruments and agreements; enforcement of these in other member states; and co-operation between the central authorities responsible for the administration of cases arising from the regulation. It also introduces a provision to provide an opportunity for a child to express his or her views in proceedings under the regulation.
The Council will discuss the proposal on the third-party effects of assignment of claims. The focus will be a policy debate on article 4, which determines the basic rule of the proposal. The options for the basic rule are either the law of habitual residence or the law of the assigned claim. The UK has not opted into this proposal so will not intervene. The UK is content with either rule providing there is no disruption to current financial market practice.
The Council will discuss the proposed regulation relating to improving law enforcement access to data held by communication service providers (e-evidence), with the aim of achieving a general approach. As the UK is not participating in the regulation, we do not have a vote and will not intervene.
The Commission is expected to provide an update at this Council on the preparation of draft EU negotiating mandates for the second additional protocol to the (Budapest) cyber-crime convention and to open discussions with the US on the CLOUD Act. The Government will consider the implications of these proposals for the UK when they are published by the Commission.
The Commission will provide an update on the planned preparatory steps on the legal and organisational measures to be taken to make the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) operational. The UK does not participate in the EPPO.
The presidency will be presenting a “state of play” paper on data retention. This reflects working level discussions on responding to the Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgments on the lawful retention of communications data.
Ministers will discuss, and be asked to approve, Council conclusions on ways to reinforce judicial co-operation in criminal justice through mutual recognition tools, including the European arrest warrant and European investigation order. The UK values our co-operation under these tools and will highlight our commitment to the principle of mutual recognition and the importance of close operational working between member states to ensure that they function efficiently.
There will also be a state of play item on EU accession to the ECHR.
[HCWS1146]
Local Government Finance Settlement 2019-20
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
In 2016, the Government offered a multi-year finance settlement, which was accepted by 97% of councils, designed to provide funding certainty over the medium term. The 2019-20 provisional settlement will consult on the final year of this four-year deal, while confirming additional resources provided at autumn Budget 2018, including £650 million for social care.
The Hudson review into local government finance, governance and processes recommended that the provisional local government finance settlement be published around 5 December. I have previously confirmed that I accept this recommendation and would aim to publish the provisional settlement on 6 December. This confirmation was made prior to the scheduling of the meaningful vote.
I recognise that my parliamentary colleagues will wish to engage thoroughly in these debates and will also wish to consider the proposed local government finance settlement for 2019-20. I have therefore decided to announce the provisional local government finance settlement after this protected period, by way of an oral statement. I can confirm that the usual period for making representations on the provisional local government finance settlement will not be truncated as a result.
[HCWS1145]
World AIDS Day
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)
Saturday 1 December marked the 30th anniversary of World AIDS Day. It is remarkable how different the global outlook is for people living with HIV in 2018 than it was in 1988. People can live full lives with HIV, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) demonstrated so poignantly on 28 November.
We have a lot to be proud of. The UK has now become one of the first countries to meet the United Nations’ 90-90-90 targets. We have demonstrated what is possible if the right services and support are in place, and when stigma and discrimination are challenged.
Globally, huge progress has been made—new HIV infections have halved since their peak in 1996. The UK has played a leading role since the beginning of the epidemic—helping to stop unnecessary AIDS-related deaths, preventing new HIV infections and investing in game-changing research and technology.
However, the end of AIDS is still not in sight. In 2017, nearly 1 million people died of AIDS, and one quarter of HIV positive people still do not know their status. We must continue to expand testing services, get more people on life-saving treatment, and address the structural issues that cause people to become infected.
That is why DFID remains one of the biggest donors to the HIV epidemic. Through our current £1.2 billion investment in the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, UK Aid is expanding access to life saving HIV treatment and supporting countries to respond to their own epidemics.
In 2017 alone, UK Aid helped the global fund partnership to provide 17.5 million people with antiretroviral therapy and protect nearly 700,000 babies from being infected by their mothers. Furthermore, our 20-year agreement with Unitaid and ongoing support to the Clinton health access initiative has given the world great advancements in HIV testing and treatment, at affordable costs.
However, the HIV epidemic is complex and cannot be addressed fully with standalone programmes—that is why DFID is delivering an integrated approach. We support the integration of HIV with TB services and signed up to the political declaration at the high level meeting on TB at UNGA 2018, which includes ambitious targets on increasing access to preventative treatments for people living with both TB and HIV. We are also ensuring HIV is included in DFID’s health systems strengthening work, and we have embedded HIV within DFID’s education policy, humanitarian policy and our 2018 strategic vision for gender equality.
HIV and AIDS disproportionately affects women and adolescent girls. AIDS is still, shockingly, the biggest killer of women of reproductive age around the world, and every week around 7,000 young women are infected with HIV. To bring down HIV infections, we must continue to fight for gender equality, stop violence against women and girls and advance sexual and reproductive health and rights.
In places where DFID does not provide aid, we are advocating for public health evidence and human rights. The failure of some countries to address their HIV epidemics is political, not financial. Discrimination against “key populations”—LGBT people, injecting drug users, sex workers, prisoners—drives worrying HIV infection rates in some parts of the world.
As a nation committed to global values, we are championing equality overseas. The UK Government support civil society to challenge harmful policies and attitudes that exclude minorities and put them at greater risk of HIV infection. In July, we announced a £6 million uplift to the Robert Carr civil society networks fund to support grassroots organisations to combat HIV stigma, demand their rights and increase access to HIV services for key populations.
The UK Government are playing a leading role as we strive to reach the sustainable development goal to end AIDS by 2030. On this World AIDS Day, while we commemorate the lives affected by HIV and AIDS, we are also inspired to accelerate our efforts.
From 3 December, DFID is pleased to be joining forces with the Department of Health and Social Care, the Elton John AIDS Foundation and the Evening Standard for the “AIDS-free Christmas Appeal”. Through UK Aid Match, the UK Government will double public donations of up to £2 million for projects in Maputo and Nairobi—we will help these cities to achieve their own 90-90-90 goals, as we have so proudly done in the UK.
[HCWS1143]
House of Lords
Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That this House, for the purposes of section 13(1)(c) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, takes note of the negotiated withdrawal agreement laid before the House on Monday 26 November 2018 with the title ‘Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community’ and the framework for the future relationship laid before the House on Monday 26 November 2018 with the title ‘Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom’.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the European Union Committee
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, the Motion before the House today gives us the formal opportunity to consider the withdrawal agreement and political declaration negotiated with the European Union. On 23 June 2016, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Before Parliament is a deal that delivers on that vote. This is a good deal and, as European leaders have made clear, the only one on offer. In supporting it, we will be protecting jobs, ending the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK and securing the ability to strike free trade deals around the world. It maintains a strong and close relationship with our European allies, while allowing us to forge new partnerships around the world.
I do not need to tell noble Lords that negotiating with 27 other countries is challenging and demands compromise. This is the case in any complex negotiation, as many in this House who have been involved in such matters will know. But we have succeeded in agreeing a deal, and Parliament has the opportunity to provide certainty to the country and allow us to move forward together.
The only certainty, if this deal is rejected in the other place, is uncertainty. That is not good for business, our economy, our political system and, most importantly, our citizens. It is not the right path to follow. Before us we have three days of debate, with contributions from over 180 noble Lords. With a crucial national decision to be made, it is right that this House devotes its time and expertise to the choice facing the United Kingdom. While it is a privilege for me to open this debate, I am grateful that the task of responding will fall to my noble friend Lord Callanan, who I know will do so with his usual panache.
Before I address the details of the documents, I will reflect briefly on this House’s role up to this point. Since the referendum and during the legislative programme that has followed, there has been regular speculation that this House would ignore the conventions governing the exercise of its powers and seek to block or frustrate the express will of the public. I speak as Leader of the whole House when I say that that is not the approach that has been taken. Noble Lords on all Benches have worked hard on the public’s behalf, debating key issues and subjecting the Government’s legislative programme—both primary and secondary—to robust scrutiny.
Despite the passionate debates we have had, this House has continued in its final decisions to recognise the primacy of the House of Commons. The conventions which spring from that recognition underpin the legitimacy of everything we do, and I believe the House has maintained them.
Since the end of June 2016, we have spent 414 hours and 47 minutes debating issues directly connected to Brexit. Six Acts have been passed to ensure the UK has a functioning statute book after exit day. These Acts put in place immediate post-exit frameworks in areas such as nuclear safeguards, sanctions, customs, and vehicle and trailer registration. Five Bills are currently before Parliament and more than 220 statutory instruments relating to Brexit have been laid.
The Select Committees of this House have been very busy. Sixty-eight reports have been published—including one produced to inform this debate—largely by your Lordship’s European Union Committee and its six sub-committees but also by the Constitution Committee, the Delegated Powers Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I thank all involved for their dedicated work.
During the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, we achieved cross-House consensus on a sensible way to consider proposed negative statutory instruments under that Act, building on our established structures and leading to two new sub-committees of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. That system has been up and running for three months and is working well.
The Motion before the House, and that which is being considered in the other place, is another legacy of our scrutiny of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. The amendment that was ultimately carried recognised from the outset that a vote on the final agreement was for the elected House alone, but it is right that our views should be put on record, as they will be, before the House of Commons votes next Tuesday. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, has tabled a separate resolution which will be debated alongside the Government’s Motion. My noble friend Lord Callanan will respond to it in his winding-up speech.
The process which has resulted in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration before us today began with the passing, unamended, through both Houses of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act. That short but crucial piece of legislation gave the Prime Minister the authority to set the clock ticking on the UK’s departure from the EU.
Noble Lords will be familiar with Article 50 on the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, and it is worth remembering that at its core it set out that any member state leaving shall negotiate and conclude an agreement,
“setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union”.
It is those two things we have been negotiating since the end of March last year: the terms of our withdrawal, and the framework for our future relationship once we are no longer a member state.
The documents we are considering are the result of thousands of hours of negotiations between the UK and the EU, and represent a conclusion that is in the national interest. I would like to take this opportunity to place on record my admiration for the Prime Minister, who has worked tirelessly to deliver this deal. Credit must also go to the hard work of both sets of negotiators. The first document, as laid in Parliament on 26 November, is the withdrawal agreement—the agreed draft treaty setting out the terms of our separation from the EU under the Article 50 process. It provides for, among other things, a deal on citizens’ rights, a time-limited implementation period, arrangements for the financial settlement and arrangements for the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland. It is to be considered and voted on as a package in the other place, with the Political Declaration Setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom. This document was also laid in both Houses on 26 November and outlines the scope and terms for our country’s future relationship with the EU. Taken together, these documents represent the evolution in both sides’ positions and demonstrate our joint commitment to a future partnership that reflects the depth of our shared history and values.
This deal secures the rights of EU citizens living and working in the UK, who make such a valuable contribution to our society, economy and public services. It ensures there will be an end to the billions of pounds we send to Brussels every year, allowing more investment in our domestic priorities. We have negotiated a fair settlement of our financial obligations and, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, this is less than half of what some people originally expected and demanded. It means we will leave the common agricultural and common fisheries policies and we will once again be in control of our immigration policy.
This deal also provides the route to a new economic partnership with the EU that goes well beyond the baseline WTO commitments on services, trade and investment. We will have an unprecedented economic relationship that no other major economy has, and it allows us to secure new trade agreements with partners around the world, but its scope goes far wider than trade. From foreign policy to security and defence, law enforcement to criminal justice, we have negotiated a security partnership to keep our citizens safe and to promote global security, prosperity and effective multilateralism. In doing so, we will be negotiating the broadest and most comprehensive security relationship in the EU’s history.
There is, of course, further work to do to turn the political declaration into a legally binding treaty during the next phase of negotiations. However, the declaration sets out a clear vision for a positive future relationship. Taken together, the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration form a deal that delivers on the result of the referendum for the whole of the UK as well as the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories. Critically, it safeguards the constitutional and economic integrity of the UK and meets our commitments to Northern Ireland; and as powers are returned to the UK, in areas of devolved competence, they will flow directly to Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh.
Noble Lords have raised concerns about the inclusion of the backstop in this deal. The original proposal from the EU would have split the UK into two customs territories—a totally unacceptable proposal that the Prime Minister would never agree to. But the backstop secured in this deal gives the whole UK tariff-free access to the EU market without free movement of people, without any financial contribution, without having to follow most of the level-playing-field rules and without allowing the EU access to our waters. As the Prime Minister explained yesterday, the backstop is not a trick to trap us in the EU by the back door. If it were ever to be used, it would give us the benefits of access to the EU’s market without many of its obligations. This is not something the EU wants to happen, let alone to persist for a long time.
Our unbreakable commitment to honouring the Belfast agreement meant that the only way that we could guarantee no border on the island of Ireland at the end of the implementation period if the future relationship was not in place was to agree a backstop as a last-resort insurance policy, and we have secured seven separate commitments in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration to ensure that the UK cannot be stuck in it indefinitely. Put simply, with no backstop there would be no deal, as the EU and the Irish Government have made clear.
Over the next three days we will hear many differing views and voices, as we have since 23 June 2016. This House has played an important role through the process of our exit from the EU, and this debate does not represent the end of that work. There will be legislation to implement this deal, and then a future relationship deal to be scrutinised, shaped and signed. I am sure that noble Lords will have welcomed the commitment by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister yesterday, when she undertook to ensure,
“a greater and more formal role for Parliament”,—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/18; col. 758.]
in the next stage of negotiations.
I know this House will approach the debate and all those to come with vigour and challenge. That is its job. The job of this Government has been to negotiate a deal that will allow the UK to leave the European Union on 29 March 2019 and forge a new path in the world. Many suggested that that was an impossible task, but they were wrong—we have a deal. There is no alternative on the table and it is now less than four months until we leave the EU. This agreement provides for an orderly exit, safeguarding our economic prosperity and the bright future of our country.
Support for this deal should not be limited to the Government Benches, as the Opposition’s manifesto clearly set out that Labour too “accepts the referendum result”. The referendum vote gave people a voice. Those who felt that they had been ignored made their decision and they placed their confidence in Parliament to deliver on that result. We must honour that trust.
On borders, laws and money, this deal delivers for the British people, and I urge colleagues across the House to support it. I look forward to the debate which will follow, and I commend the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship framework to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for opening a very important debate, and to the usual channels for facilitating what is effectively four days of debate across three days to ensure we have the opportunity to conclude our discussions prior to the vote in the other place.
Since the result of the referendum, as the noble Baroness referenced, this House has been constructive in examining the detail and implications of the UK’s departure from the EU. The clearest evidence of this is the many Select Committee reports on a range of subjects, such as trade and financial services, judicial and security co-operation, and Northern Ireland, which have brought enormous clarity to complex matters. When the Government were forced by the High Court to secure Parliament’s approval to trigger Article 50, your Lordships’ House passed just two amendments—on the position of EU nationals and the need for parliamentary debate—with a vote for MPs on the eventual deal. Although the Government opposed the amendments, they conceded the principle on both.
Our constructive approach has also been evident in later legislation. On the withdrawal Bill, some 160 hours of scrutiny led your Lordships’ House to pass an unprecedented 15 amendments for consideration by MPs. Despite the over-the-top protestations from some, this was clearly useful work. Our EU agencies amendment was accepted in full and others, including those on Northern Ireland and the meaningful vote, were accepted with some changes.
Your Lordships’ House, working across party lines to improve the legislation, secured almost 200 concessions, including crucial restrictions on delegated powers. We considered that there should be parliamentary oversight of the final arrangements, rather than our future relationship with the EU being approved with the stroke of a ministerial pen. This House agreed that we should debate the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal, but that the meaningful vote should be for the elected House. Any vote we have is an expression of our opinion as a second Chamber, and our debate over the coming days is in that context. It provides an opportunity for your Lordships’ House to continue to be constructive, analytical and forensic in consideration of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration.
Following discussions and consultations, we have tabled a Motion in my name to provide an opportunity for your Lordships’ House to express its opinion on the outcome of the Prime Minister’s negotiations. I will speak to it now, but it will not be formally moved until the conclusion of our debate on Monday. I have just been informed that an amendment to my Motion has been tabled, although I have not had sight of it yet. I do not know what it says, but I hope that might become clearer in the next few days.
The aim of my amendment is to frame the next few days around three key issues that are at stake. First, as noted, it is for the elected House of Commons to determine this matter. When we debated the withdrawal Bill in this House, my noble friend Lord Monks tabled a successful amendment saying that the Prime Minister should obtain a mandate from Parliament for her deliberations with the EU. At that time the Government were adamant that Mrs May could not be constrained by Parliament, yet had she sought a parliamentary mandate then, even just for the basic principles, she might not be facing such an uphill and perhaps even impossible struggle. Yet as we heard from her last night, she has again conceded that principle. While it is exceptional, the Government are—probably as I speak—releasing their own legal advice, having been forced to do so by MPs. The House of Commons faces its most important Division for 75 years, so how could it have been against the national interest, as the Government then claimed, to provide MPs with vital legal information? I am pleased that, following last night’s vote, the Government have had to accept that they were wrong, but the Prime Minister just made her job harder.
Secondly, the Motion is clear that the option—or indeed the threat—of a no-deal exit is emphatically rejected. While some may fondly imagine that the only consequence of no deal is that we step back in time and pick up where we left off 45 years ago, the reality is so very different. The world outside has not been static, just waiting for us. To crash out of the EU without arrangements in place for co-operation on trade, agriculture and fisheries, crime and security, consumer and employment protections, energy and the environment would be grossly reckless and irresponsible. It would leave the country in the curious position of being outside the EU but having essentially to accept free movement, due to a lack of alternative immigration arrangements. It would leave our UK citizens in the EU without security in employment or in retirement. Initially, planes would be grounded and, regardless of the number of lorry parking spaces made available on our motorways, major ports would experience tailbacks and costly delays, with huge implications for the nation’s food security and exports. Our already overstretched police forces would no longer have access to EU databases but would be left to rely on patchy, outdated and cumbersome procedures for exchanging vital information on cross-border crime. The lack of certainty for businesses would have a hugely detrimental effect on our economy and investment. There are no circumstances in which a no-deal scenario could be of any benefit to the UK.
Thirdly, the Motion regrets that the Prime Minister’s negotiated settlement is inadequate. The Government initially argued against a transition or implementation period, claiming they had everything in place: it would all be done by March 2019. This deal proves how empty a boast that was. The Government are now forced to accept that such a breathing space is essential as they have not been able to reach agreement on multiple issues. The declaration outlines what both sides hope can be achieved, but it offers zero certainty. Should the deal we are debating be accepted by the other place, the Government would then bring forward what they call an implementation Bill, but nobody has any idea what it will be implementing. Our future economic prosperity, our security and our place in the world are all weakened by this agreement.
Since the publication of the political declaration, it has become clear that the envisaged trade and security relationship is below par. Even if the Prime Minister had got everything on her Chequers shopping list—and we should be clear that she is nowhere near—the result would be slower economic growth. There is no provision for a permanent UK-EU customs union, nor for continued participation in the European arrest warrant. While the EU has stated that the UK can enjoy an unprecedented level of third-country security co-operation, we have no idea whether we will have access to databases such as the second-generation Schengen Information System. On Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister produced a backstop that literally nobody is happy with—not her Back Benchers, not the DUP and certainly not the Labour Party.
What does the Prime Minister’s deal offer us? It is a wish list, with decisions to be made later. In the words of the latest Brexit Secretary,
“we have agreed to strike an ambitious new flexible and scalable relationship that allows us to combine resources worldwide for maximum impact”.
If only there was some existing international organisation that allowed the UK to maximise its contribution to global affairs. The deal before us represents a blind Brexit, with no certainty or clarity for the future. It does not deserve our support.
When the Prime Minister claims it is the best deal, what she means is that it is the best deal she has been able to negotiate. Those red lines Mrs May set at Lancaster House were never a great starting point for a strategy. Throughout, she has sought to appease one or other of the rival factions in her party. In a Statement last week, the Lord Privy Seal described Brexit as,
“building a brighter future of opportunity and prosperity for all our people”.—[Official Report, 26/11/18; col. 503.]
On what basis can that claim be made? What is the evidence? Where is the detail?
The Government’s economic analysis was modelled on a White Paper produced post-Chequers. That is not even government policy any more. We have been told that countries are queueing up to sign trade deals with us. However, the US President clearly thinks otherwise. The Prime Minister’s most positive interaction at the G20 summit was meeting her Japanese counterpart who, echoing our Motion today, pleaded with Mrs May to rule out no deal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that the deal leaves us worse off, saying:
“There will be a cost to leaving the European Union, because there will impediments to our trade”.
The options being presented by the Prime Minister are her deal—which would leave us worse off—or a catastrophic no deal. That is a Hobson’s choice, and not one that any responsible Government should ever seek to force their Parliament to take.
Let us be very clear: the Government have mismanaged this entire process. Every time there has been a fork in the road with decisions to be made on the direction ahead, the Prime Minister has taken the wrong turn. No responsible Government would ever trigger Article 50 without having some kind of blueprint for negotiations and ensuring buy-in from Parliament. No responsible Government would ever alienate their closest allies before talks had even begun by refusing to protect the rights of their citizens who have made this country their home. Surely, no responsible Government should ever talk up the chance of falling off a cliff-edge, forcing businesses to implement contingency plans that result in the loss of UK jobs.
It is little wonder the Prime Minister is living life on the edge, taking each week—or rather each day—as it comes, or that our country is so divided. That division is not the only tragedy of Brexit. Imagine if that energy, intellect, enthusiasm and money had been channelled into some of the great issues of our time: eradicating homelessness and poverty, tackling climate change, preventing disease and resolving conflict. For the first time since the Second World War, we have generations of young people without the hope, optimism or confidence in the future that their parents and grandparents had. Whatever the eventual outcome of the wider debate on Brexit, there is an obligation on all of us to address that and prove that the current state of our political life is not the norm. Parliament and politics should and must be a force for good.
The public were promised outcomes that were never realistic. Over the next few days, your Lordships’ House will do what it does best: scrutinising the agreements and highlighting the many issues and inconsistences within them. On Monday, before the Commons takes its own binding decision, I will ask your Lordships’ House to vote on the Motion standing in my name. There are just three points: first, it is for MPs to make the decision; secondly, no deal can never be an option; thirdly, even if the Prime Minister thinks it is the best deal she can get, it is inadequate. We hope our debate, the evidence we have already provided through our Select Committees and the work of our EU committee will be useful to MPs as they deliberate. As part of being helpful to the other place, we hope your Lordships’ House will want to express the view that the Prime Minister is wrong to impose this as a choice between her deal or no deal.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I apologise that I was not able to give her more notice of the amendment I have put down to her Motion. For reasons I shall give when I speak, I wholeheartedly go along with the first two legs of her Motion, but I cannot agree with the condemnation of the draft agreement in the last part.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am sorry that the noble Lord was not able to speak to me before. However, the point I am making does not differ from his, and I stand by it: the deal offered by the Prime Minister is inadequate.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, when your Lordships’ House debated the withdrawal Bill, we agreed that the substantive, meaningful vote at the end of the Brexit negotiations would lie exclusively with the Commons. This is reflected in the Government’s Motion today. However, I think your Lordships would have felt cheated had we not had the opportunity to express a view on the two Brexit options facing the country: the Government’s deal and leaving the EU without a deal. I am therefore grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for tabling a Motion on which we have been consulted and with which we agree.
The country finds itself in the most dangerous position it has faced in 80 years. It continues to have great underlying strengths, but it is faced with serious divisions at home—between rich and poor, and north and south—and increasing tensions internationally, whether from terrorism, an opportunistic and expansionist Russia or an eccentric ally in the United States. In these circumstances, the Government have embarked on a policy purely to resolve differences in the Conservative Party: a mission that has spectacularly failed, incidentally. The Prime Minister knew—she said so at the time—that it would make us poorer, less secure and less influential.
Your Lordships’ House contains many eminent historians. None of them has yet been able to point to an example of a democracy ever knowingly embarking on such a policy, but that is where Britain is today. On the economics, the only real debate now is about exactly how much poorer we will become. The Government’s own assessment, published last week, gives a bewildering range of scenarios, but every single outcome is preceded by a minus sign. Some argue that this is because the Treasury is useless or biased in its forecasting. But, as the table on page 81 of the government document demonstrates, of the 28 forecasts of the impact of Brexit produced in the last three years, only one—by the highly partisan Economists for Free Trade group—shows the economy doing better if we leave the EU.
On security, obviously we would not remain a member of a raft of EU programmes and co-ordinating bodies. For example, all talk of remaining in the crucial European arrest warrant has now vanished. Similarly, our influence on the world stage will inevitably be diminished, as the Prime Minister’s rather sad and lonely performance in Buenos Aires amply demonstrated.
Of the two Brexit options before us, leaving without a deal is so damaging that in my view there has never been any chance of the Commons supporting it. Yesterday’s vote on the Grieve amendment merely reinforces that view. The other option, the Prime Minister’s deal, consists of two parts: the withdrawal agreement, which is probably as good as was available given the Government’s red lines, and the political declaration on our future relationship. The document produced by the Government to explain this latter agreement says the political declaration,
“will be turned into legal text after the UK leaves the EU”.
This is a deeply misleading statement. The declaration contains virtually no agreements that we are remotely near being able to turn into legal text. It is an agenda for future discussions, with all difficult issues again kicked down the road. In the time available, I will mention only two: people and trade.
On people, the Government are clear only on wanting to restrict EU migration, but on this they are fighting the last war. Far from there being hordes of Europeans now wanting to come to the UK, figures released last week show a net exodus of EU citizens in the last quarter. This is not surprising. For example, I know of a Frenchwoman who has lived in North Yorkshire for 32 years and is returning to France in the spring with her English husband because she cannot stand the level of abuse the Brexit vote has unleashed. This example is commonplace. Why, then, would anybody from the EU want to come to live in this environment?
The Government cannot even decide what their immigration strategy should be. The Prime Minister wants to limit EU migrants to those earning £30,000 a year or more—a move that would have severe negative effects on the agricultural, hospitality and care sectors. No wonder it is opposed by half her Cabinet. To quote from the Government’s document, for those EU citizens already in the UK, the Government can promise only that they can,
“live their lives broadly as now”.
What does “broadly” mean? It is hardly likely to make waverers decide to stay here.
On trade, the Chequers agreement promised frictionless trade by having a wholly impractical so-called facilitated customs arrangement. This has been comprehensively rejected by the EU. In its place, we do indeed have in the political declaration an agreement not to have tariffs; but as for frictionless trade, the agreement states that, depending on the extent to which the UK follows EU rules, there is,
“a spectrum of different outcomes for administrative processes as well as checks and controls”.
If we diverge on rules and standards, as the Government intend, we will have customs controls. Heaven knows how the Government think that is compatible with an open border in Northern Ireland. However, it does perhaps explain why some fear that the Northern Ireland backstop might become permanent.
The vagueness of the political declaration, its failure to incorporate the UK wish list in the Chequers agreement and its confirmation of our weakened economic and security status make it hardly surprising that it has been so widely condemned in the Commons, or that the Government are set to lose their meaningful vote. So when the deal has been voted down, what will happen next? There are only three options.
The Government could attempt to renegotiate the deal, but even if the EU was ready to do so, it is extremely unclear what alternative would stand a better chance of Commons success. Whether it is Norway-plus, Canada-plus-plus or Ukraine plus-plus-plus, the same inexorable trade-off has to be made. You can have independence and a hard border in Ireland, or you can have a frictionless border and the requirement to follow EU rules, laws and subscription fees. I find it particularly odd that so many people now seem to want to follow the example of Norway—a country that supinely follows EU rules, pays as much into the EU per head as we do and, in reality, has to accept all EU court rulings. It is a sign of how desperate some of those advocating Brexit have become that this is the best they can come up with.
The second option is to have a general election, but given that this will be fought by three Conservative parties and at least two Labour parties, I cannot see how it could possibly bring any clarity to the position.
The third option, of course, is to ask the people to decide what they want. Such an option now has clear majority support in the country, and the polls also show a consistently widening majority in favour of remaining in the EU. Those who argue against such a referendum on the grounds that it is undemocratic are guilty of a perversion of language and logic, as is the Prime Minister when she claims that the deal she has negotiated will bring the country back together again. We do indeed need to implement policies to heal the divisions in society, but our ability to do so if we become poorer, less secure and less influential will be much reduced. That is why I urge Members of your Lordships’ House to support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and urge the Commons to ask the people whether this is the future they really want.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, for me as a self-confessed remainer, it has felt from time to time as if we are trapped in a maze from which there is no way out. I did not want to enter the maze at all. I did not believe the declarations by some of those who were selling the idea of leaving the EU to the public. Theirs was a false prospectus, as the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, pointed out in a memorable contribution to our debate on the people’s vote on 25 October. It seemed to me that despite the EU’s obvious shortcomings, we would almost certainly lose more than we would gain by leaving it, but I was willing to respect the result of the referendum, and that has been my position ever since.
Yet from the earliest months of the negotiation it was clear to me that it was an unequal struggle. It did not take the EU very long to get its act together and work out what it needed to achieve on its side if it was to hold the 27 together. Our side was beset by disagreements about what we wanted and the drawing of red lines before our case had been properly thought through. A prime example was our position that we would have nothing whatever to do with the jurisdiction of the ECJ—the CJEU as it is now—in any circumstances, a misguided and constant obstacle to progress. It was impossible to hold on to—as the agreement and the Attorney-General’s commentary on the legal position now show. To take but one example, the ruling by the CJEU on an issue referred to it by the arbitration panel is to be binding on the arbitration panel, and this means that it will be binding on us. For too long it seemed that such an arrangement would have been totally unacceptable, but it is obvious, given the assumption that the issue will always be one of EU law not domestic law, that this had to be so. There are other examples. We were far too slow to accept the inevitable.
Now we have a deal which we are told is the best that can be achieved. That is what the Prime Minister, guided by those who were conducting the negotiations on her behalf, is telling us. So too are Mr Tusk and Mr Barnier. Then we are told by so many on our side of the channel, who seem best placed to say so, that it is a bad deal and unacceptable. They seem to have a point. There is the backstop, of which we have heard so much, and its implications for Scotland, among other things, if it is invoked. We now have advice from the Attorney-General that there is no prospect of our being able to withdraw from the backstop unilaterally. Then there is the fact that so much will be decided for us during the implementation period by institutions of the EU of which we will no longer be a member and on which we will no longer be represented, and the contributions, which have meant so much, by our European Union Committee and its sub-committees will no longer be able to be made, and so on.
One thing seems to be certain in this fast-moving situation. As the law stands, we will be leaving the EU on 29 March, so we have to find the best way out if we can. What is it to be, I ask myself. I sympathise with those members of the public, many in the business community, who are fed up with the process, want to move on and want certainty. As one of our Cross-Benchers, who unfortunately cannot be in her place, said to me in a note attached to her Christmas card, “People I talk to have given up on the detail. They just want a deal to happen and to move on. Trying to discuss the complications brings a level of irritation from all sorts”. In other words, people recognise that there is a price to be paid because the deal has not a few things wrong with it, but they are willing to pay that price and move on.
There are three ways out of the maze that I find myself in, other than accepting the deal: no deal; to seek to renegotiate; or to go back to the people. As to no deal, it really is the cliff edge. If leaving the EU with this deal will make us all poorer, to leave it with no deal at all is far worse. Business leaders tell us that it is the worst of all worlds. So does the Governor of the Bank of England. The consequences for our security and for judicial co-operation in criminal matters would be very serious, and time to do anything about it is fast running out. I could go on, but the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made all these points for me. For me, it is simply not an option.
Next, to ask the Prime Minister to renegotiate, in the expectation that any significant changes can be achieved by that method, seems to me to be barking in the wind. It will prolong uncertainty, and changes of a fundamental nature in the backstop arrangements seem remote. It is far from clear how much of the political declaration, on which so much depends as we move to the implementation period, would survive if we were to go back to the negotiating table and try to start again. That may have to be thought through again. All in all, this option seems highly unlikely to produce enough by any further agreement to satisfy those who argue for this course. The arguments that whatever is got out of it is still a bad deal will simply not go away.
Then there is the option of taking it back to the people. Of course, if a second referendum were to reverse the vote, it would open the door to a declaration by Parliament not to leave at all: to no Brexit. For me, as a remainer, this of course has some attraction, but I think we would be deluding ourselves if we thought this would settle the matter for ever. The last campaign was unpleasant enough. Project Fear and all the other slogans would raise their ugly heads again. I do not think the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of York, was far wrong when he said on Monday that a second referendum would undermine trust in democracy, that civil unrest would follow and all that that means. If the result were to go the remainers’ way, perhaps by a similar margin to last time, there would be much resentment among the people who voted the other way. They would feel they had been cheated, and one could understand why. It seems to me that there are real dangers here, however attractive this option might seem.
So where am I? It seems to me that the best way out of the maze is to accept this deal for what it is. Part of me regrets this, because there are aspects of it which I do not like. However, I cannot bring myself to describe the consequences as “grave”, as the noble Baroness’s Motion invites us to do. Let us have a sense of perspective. It is, after all, a deal about the withdrawal and implementation period. There is much more work still to be done after that. It is not the end of the story. I believe we should move on to the next stage and concentrate our efforts now on establishing a sound framework for our future relationship with the EU. That is what really matters in the long run.
Let us also face the fact that the decision to leave was always going to leave us with less than we wanted. We were always going to have to compromise. It is an imperfect deal, but it is all we have, so I am prepared to swallow my misgivings and get on with it.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, of the choice of psalms that form part of our daily prayers in the Lords, we have Psalm 46, which we heard today,
“The nations rage, the kingdoms totter”,
and Psalm 121, which we will doubtless hear tomorrow,
“I lift up my eyes to the hills …
My help comes from the Lord,
who made heaven and earth”.
Eyes need to be lifted now more than ever, and that is a gift of this House, perhaps more than others. It is a skill and a calling here.
The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration are essentially political more than economic; the debate has moved on from the referendum campaign, which was the other way round. Another change, as we know particularly since yesterday evening, is that the great decisions are now left firmly in the hands of Parliament—as is right.
The decision on this agreement and consequent legislation is thus about not just the immediate politics but national policy and identity, and our future place in the world and how we develop it. It is long term: it is for the child born yesterday and not just for parliamentarians today. The decision must be made in the interests of those who will be here for the long term. In the midst of political struggle, that is a very hard thing to do, but it is the calling of Parliament and one to which it has risen in equal crises in the past.
In what way will we be able to be the kind of nation we want to be? First, it is obvious that no agreement is ever final. Many years ago, Palmerston said:
“We have no eternal allies”,—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/1848; col. 122.]
only eternal interests. So no agreement is final, least of all the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, both of which I have read in their entirety. They make it clear that so much is left open in deciding our future and our relationships with the EU 27 and around the world. That may be an advantage or a disadvantage.
What is obvious is that we are choosing a new path. Although I am a remainer, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I fully accept the decision of the referendum, which must now be implemented; the shape of which is in the hands of Parliament, and particularly of the other place. With that responsibility there is a moral agency and a moral choice, and it is that that should guide our votes. It must reflect a genuinely hopeful vision for our nation and its place, because there is a vision of hope and global influence to be grasped by this country, with proper leadership.
Secondly, whichever way we go, there is a requirement for national reconciliation; for restating what the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, calls the core values of civilised discourse, and ensuring that they are lived out. The negative impact of the previous referendum is why I see another one as a possible but not immediately preferable choice, and only if Parliament has failed in its responsibilities. Reconciliation is an area for civil society and faith groups, but it is also largely the responsibility of any Government. It is a process that takes generations, and thus will affect not only the current Government but subsequent ones. What specific commitment will the Leader of the House—and for that matter the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and other leaders of groups and parties—make to future Governments to work purposefully for reconciliation in this House, across politics and across the nation? We have heard much about its need but nothing about its methods.
Thirdly, economically, we know that there are many and diverse views about the outcome of this agreement, of no agreement or of other possibilities. We know that no forecast is certain—that has become very clear over the last two and a half years. The risk we face now is not a decision to leave without an agreement but an accidental leaving without an agreement. We may drift into something that no one chooses as their ideal. If that happens, and even under some of the other options, there is a significant danger of adverse economic effect, with a fall in government revenue, a rise in unemployment and greater poverty. Some will argue that that will be only temporary, but we need to remember that for those in poverty, temporary is an eternity. It must be the clear policy of this and all future Governments, after so many years of austerity, borne most often by the poorest, that the burden of the transition to a post-EU economy—if there is a burden—must be carried by those with the broadest shoulders, the wealthiest, and not by further cuts, whether to local services, social care, benefits, the Armed Forces, climate change budgets, education or other areas that have lost so much in recent years.
This is not a simply a debate—and, in the other place, a decision—on the agreement and the declaration before us. This is genuinely a moment of national re-imagination; exciting and hope-filled, but also deeply dangerous in some ways. We have had such before; we need not despair.
Another verse from the Bible, from Proverbs in the King James version, says:
“Where there is no vision, the people perish”.
The withdrawal agreement and political declaration are mainly about process, not vision and outcome. Whichever way we go, there must be a vision for justice and fairness, with economic, political, and visionary moral foundations secure enough to bear any storms or shocks that may come. The process must then lay the foundations to fulfil such a vision. That should be the test for our voting.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I feel the responsibility of that and appreciate what he said.
The Prime Minister has been criticised for the so-called red lines. I think these were very reasonable attempts to focus on what the referendum had done and to try to follow through on the intention of those who had voted in the majority. Therefore, as far as I am concerned the Prime Minister is seeking to implement the recommendation—the advice—she got in the referendum. It is against that background that one has to evaluate what has happened. The advisory time is seven minutes, and I am determined to keep to that. Therefore, I shall be selective in what I talk about, because I could easily go on for much longer.
When I was appointed Lord Chancellor in 1987, one of my responsibilities was the nomination of judges in Northern Ireland and the political supervision of the court system there. Shortly before my appointment, a Lord Justice had been blown up after crossing the great boundary between Northern Ireland and Ireland; the Lord Chief Justice had been shot at; and a Lord Justice’s wife had come home from shopping to find a note on the kitchen table saying, “Get out quickly, because the place is going to be blown up”. She did get out quickly and her home was blown up. So the dangers facing the judiciary of Northern Ireland then were very severe, and it is extraordinary how they were able to live in those surroundings.
The peace and security of Northern Ireland are very much an issue in my life, and I will do everything I possibly can to defend them. The Belfast agreement, and all that followed it, is a wonderful step forward, and the situation in Northern Ireland is now, happily, very different from when I took office. But it is not perfect, and we need to be careful to secure what has happened.
The peace and prosperity of Northern Ireland is not a temporary matter. I would like it to last as long as possible. The steps taken to secure it should therefore also be permanent. Others in this House who had political responsibilities in Northern Ireland agree that the only way to secure a soft border or eliminate a hard border is to apply pretty similar customs rules on both sides of the border. That is the purpose of the backstop.
The backstop will be permanent if it is necessary for it to be permanent. I can see no way out of that if you like the peace and prosperity of Northern Ireland—as I said, I certainly do. The necessity for the backstop to be permanent is obvious, unless and until the conditions are satisfied in which it can be changed. One of those conditions is the agreement of a new customs arrangement between the United Kingdom and the EU. That is one objective of the agreement that has been reached.
The withdrawal agreement is a binding legal agreement. The political proposal is not binding in that sense, but it is the agenda for an agreement. The agreement will be enforced by the law of the United Kingdom, as well as by the law of the EU. My view of these documents—and I was glad that Mr Trump was able to give a view on them, having read the whole lot very quickly—is that they are well written but complicated. As legal documents go, they are readable for those who have not been burdened by being lawyers. The agreement requires that the treaty that follows on the political agenda will be brought into force with the best endeavours of the two sides. That is a legal requirement that can be enforced under the procedures in the withdrawal agreement.
The other day, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, asked what could be done on enforcement. He correctly pointed out that although it would not be an arbitration tribunal that fixed the new agreement, it would have the power to enforce the best endeavours provision. Therefore, I would expect the result to be a full treaty according to these provisions within the time allotted. My time allotted has finished.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the opening speakers for setting the scene for this debate so well. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon for setting the case for her Motion extremely well; I strongly support her. I have deep concerns about the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, and I do not think that they are as illuminating as the Government believe. I am reminded of the old adage: it is darkest at the bottom of the lighthouse.
As a pragmatic businessman, I would have been open to accepting the Government’s intended plan at the very beginning to respect the will of the referendum and to set out a broad plan and timetable. But my confidence has strongly waned since then, and I truly believe not only that are we in the position of having an inadequate agreement but that it is time for us to return to the question of whether there is a place and time for another referendum.
The main long-term questions are still unresolved. The two-year period of negotiations has created an ever-larger series of negotiations, for many more years to come. All this is because the date for withdrawal was set before any plan was made. The planning and preparations continue to be inadequate, and options have not been properly evaluated. In business, we would call this stage of the process the heads of terms: we would come to the main agreement and be able to say that we had the basis of a deal, and then all the detail could be addressed in an orderly way. But this is not even remotely near a heads of terms. As an old mentor would say to me if I came back with an unfinished job, a cake with its ingredients missing is basically a biscuit. This is not a deal. Those so exhausted by this process that they believe any deal should come forward will be most disheartened by this deal’s consequences.
This deal is the unfortunate product of a process that has not just lacked long-term objectives and strategy, but been plagued by a piecemeal approach and lacked the most basic forms of consultation. It is too internally focused. There has been a deep lack of preparation and no desire to see the Government act in a way that would make this effort a national mission. It has been the story of internal political divisions and the agreement’s contents bear this out. That is not only on one party’s side, but one party is the Government.
The accompanying documents also cite the economic impact. The many economic projections all tell pretty much the same story: the loss of economic output over 10 years of a post-Brexit Britain will be somewhere between £40 billion at best and up to £200 billion. That is less than the projected £300 billion cost of the financial crisis, but it comes after it and after failed growth following the appalling austerity plan. One also has to admit that after we come to this agreement the period towards the next election will also have a tremendous amount of political uncertainty and fear for business, which will continue to be a drag on any prospect of growth. These objections also do not deal with some of the likely industry-specific consequences, be they in aviation, the car industry or across our services, which have a very uncertain future outside the EU. This is a terrible story of potential decline—one that we must be very concerned about, given the state of our public services, economy and development.
This is a matter that we must take deeply seriously and that we have to address with the public. The evidence is overwhelming. The future is not certain, but it is a certainty that we will be worse off. I might not share their view, but noble Lords can argue that Brexit is worth the economic damage it implies, that economics is not the most important consideration or even that some of these economic warnings are overblown, but it is absurd to say that there will be no damage at all. There are strong divisions in this country that will not be addressed by the outcome of the withdrawal agreement. It provides absolutely no certainty whatever, rather the prospect of continued division, uncertainty and negotiation.
The sense of betrayal from all sides of the debate has a poisonous impact on our body politic, and brings corrosion and a sense of disaffection. We can see this happening with awful things such as the terrible takeover of UKIP by the far right, which means that the next few years will be deeply unpleasant in our country unless we address this.
The agreement really does not help any of these matters and it is not the only option. Even if there is no capacity in anyone’s ability to renegotiate the arrangements with the EU, it is not the EU’s problem: it is our inability to have the right sort of vision or plan. It is easy to renegotiate. But there is now no doubt that even Article 50 can be stopped. When we come to crystallise our view we have the chance to make sure we make the right expression that we oppose the deal. We should say that it has no long-term vision, offers prolonged and ever worse division, and does not offer Britain wider economic prosperity and opportunities, and that we have to rise above our divisions.
Ultimately, we have to take a view on a new people’s vote. I truly believe we should also have remain as an option. This country has come to a point where it now understands Brexit’s consequences. They are too terrible to bear. Our position has not been resolved over two years. It is time to take this matter seriously with a long-term view.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I remember the late Lord Williamson of Horton coming to speak when I was a student at Oxford. He said that one morning Margaret Thatcher came down the stairs in No. 10 waving a piece of paper, saying, “I’ve read it. I agree”. The piece of paper—indeed, it would have been a few pieces of paper—was the Single European Act. We then had a Prime Minister who did her homework, who was a lawyer and who could have been expected to understand the implications of what she had agreed to. Yet, with hindsight, she and many others on the Conservative Benches felt that the Single European Act may have been a mistake.
With the withdrawal agreement that Theresa May—or perhaps one of her Secretaries of State, it is not wholly clear—has negotiated, one wonders whether anybody has read it. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury noted that he has read it, as have I and, I suspect, others across the Chamber, but when the Prime Minister claimed to have agreement in her Cabinet on the withdrawal agreement, that was quickly disproved. At 585 pages, it is difficult to see how members of her Cabinet or Conservative Back-Benchers could possibly have read the agreement within an hour, when they were supposed to be discussing it. There is a question about how much detail has been examined and how much time has been spent scrutinising the withdrawal agreement, which does not do what the Prime Minister claimed. It does not return control from the European Union, as advertised by the leave campaign, as Theresa May has said she wants to do, and as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House suggested earlier.
There are some good points in the withdrawal agreement, and it is important to distinguish between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. There are some aspects of Part 2 of the withdrawal agreement dealing with the rights of EU citizens and UK nationals which should have been dealt with in June 2016. One might say: what has taken you so long? Despite its good bits there are all sorts of hostages to fortune. The role of the Court of Justice of the European Union might be something that those of us who are passionate pro-Europeans think is a good thing, but should the United Kingdom be tied to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in the way it will be under the withdrawal agreement? I suspect that no leavers would want that—I see the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, shaking his head—but I am not sure many remainers want that either.
Of course, the withdrawal agreement is supposed to take us only to the end of December 2020. Thereafter, the political declaration is supposed to lead us towards those great sunlit uplands. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury reminded us of Psalm 121, which talks about mine eyes looking up to the hills. The political declaration is something of a mirage. As the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, suggested, it is vague and does not deliver on the expectations generated by leavers or the Prime Minister.
By now, we should be clear what the future relationship will look like. Arguably, it should have been clear on 23 June 2016. It was not. It should certainly have been clear at the time that the Prime Minister triggered Article 50. It was not. It was almost clear in July this year, when the Prime Minister claimed to have agreement on her Chequers proposal, but it was not clear then and the political declaration that the Prime Minister has negotiated does not have the support of her Cabinet—as we saw with the resignation of a second Brexit Secretary, which seemed to be more than a little careless—and it does not have support in the other place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, states in her Motion that the political declaration,
“would do grave damage to the future economic prosperity, internal security and global influence of the United Kingdom”.
There is nothing to suggest that this is a better arrangement than we have as members of the European Union, and we should not be lured into the false logic that the Prime Minister has put forward, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House reiterated and, I regret to say, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, also suggested: we need a deal, this is the deal, therefore we should accept it. Nobody voted to be poorer, for the country to be diminished and for us also to lose control of our sovereignty. Nobody wanted that. Some leavers might have said that they would rather be worse off if we could reclaim sovereignty, but who in their right mind would want to be poorer, for the country to be diminished and for us to lose control?
I am afraid that, again, I am reminded of the words of Baroness Thatcher. She said consensus is a,
“process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no-one believes, but to which no-one objects—the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner ‘I stand for consensus’?”
I would say that the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration represent consensus, except the only person who wants this agreement is the Prime Minister. If the House of Commons cannot support this deal, and if almost everyone agrees that no deal would be a disaster for the country, we have another option. We can ask the Prime Minister and the House of Commons to look again, and perhaps it is time to ask the people to think again.
When we voted to trigger Article 50, I was one of the very few Liberal Democrats who did not vote for the amendment on a referendum. I wanted to accept the result of the referendum because I thought that that was the right thing to do. However, if we cannot find a deal and can only put forward ideas that will make the country much worse off, surely it is now time to offer the people the chance to think again.
Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am struck by the gulf between the measured analysis of the withdrawal agreement and political declaration that we have attempted to offer in our EU Committee report published this morning and the intense emotions, concealed or express, felt on all sides of the House and across the nation. We have taken the view as a Committee that our role is not to plump for one particular policy or another—there will of course be differences among Committee members—but instead to offer your Lordships a cool and precise analysis of the situation, and leave it to colleagues to take their own approach.
Over the 30 months since the Brexit referendum, we have published almost 40 reports on major policy issues and on the conduct of the negotiations. It is now abundantly clear that these matters are complex and simply not amenable to simplistic solutions or, if I dare say it, soundbite policies. Most of all, despite what was said on either side in campaigning, they do not lend themselves to absolutist opinions. I ask myself: what became of our vaunted British common sense and pragmatism?
Meanwhile, I recognise that the arguments are shifting, as those who are not obsessives begin to realise that we have only a few months left to sort ourselves out. Many others, who have better things to do than wander and wade through more than 500 pages of legal documents, want this all to be over, while at the same time are rightly concerned as to how it will affect them and those nearest to them. I still deploy the simple test of the European health insurance card: after 29 March, will it still work or not?
We now at least have a deal for the withdrawal agreement, as required under Article 50, and a core text for the declaration on future relations. It is unlikely that our European colleagues will want to reopen the former or rush to reconsider the latter. In our report, we point to some serious issues over the proposed transition or implementation period. However, it does buy time for the measured consideration of the many compromises and trade-offs we shall need in a prolonged negotiation, of which, frankly, only the first phase is concluded. We also raise significant concerns over the proposed backstop while identifying positive elements and omissions and ambiguities in the political declaration. I hope that our report will provide food for thought to noble Lords contributing to this debate and more widely in the national debate.
I offer five short thoughts in conclusion. First, while we must meet the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole, we must also take full account of the views and concerns of its constituent parts, as well as the members of the wider British family, including Gibraltar, the other overseas territories and the Crown dependencies. Secondly, we must answer the conundrum of ensuring no hard border on the island of Ireland while retaining the territorial integrity of the UK and ensuring that the voices and concerns of both communities in Northern Ireland are heard. Thirdly, we should be conscious that every option open to us involves costs and compromises. There is no easy or costless change of policy. Fourthly, we should remember the habits of co-operation and friendship built up over decades of our membership and not burn our bridges with the remaining 27 member states. Finally, if we decide to jump into the unknown, remember to pack a reserve parachute.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register as a former MEP. What can I say? What can any of us say now that we are in the end game of this miserable national predicament called Brexit? We have seen the Prime Minister’s deal, which I am afraid gives us even less than Chequers did, especially when it comes to the ambition for frictionless borders. The Government’s latest economic analysis, after all the modelling, assumptions and hedging, adds up to only one thing: leaving the EU on March 29 means that we will be poorer than we are now, or staying in the EU, as noble Lords have said.
Of course if we leave without a deal, the impact on trade means that we could lose up to 9% of GDP and could experience an 11.8% drop in real wages. That is to say nothing of the emergency measures needed when it comes to food and medicine shortages, drinking water and disruption in travel, transportation and energy supplies. The Bank of England, which has become something of a pantomime villain for the Brexiteers, has also warned that under the worst-case scenario, house prices could fall by 30%, employment could rise by more than 7% and GDP could fall by 8%. The list goes on, is frightening and must not be allowed to happen, as our Motion tabled by my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon outlines. A Canada-style free trade agreement means a shocking drop in GDP and real wages, according to the Government. Even an EEA Norway-style Brexit sees GDP drop by 2.3% and real wages drop by 2.8%. The Prime Minister’s deal means that we lose up to 2.2% of GDP and could experience a drop of 2.7% in real wages. Of course, as noble Lords have said, these losses will be felt by the poorest people, the marginalised and the left behind. Is this not where we came in? There are no happy stories here; no reasons to celebrate this December.
Everyone in the country is worried and people are looking for certainty for themselves, their families and their workplaces. To many, the Prime Minister’s deal looks like a kind of solution, as in, “Please make the pain stop”. We have to acknowledge that fear and anxiety in the country and offer a feasible and positive alternative. The clamour is growing, especially among our young people, for a people’s vote on the terms of our leaving. At the time of the referendum, none of us could have imagined those terms, and that vote would be an opportunity to change our minds, should we wish to. Like many on my side of the argument, I am often asked whether I want the referendum to be a neverendum, as they say in Scotland. In other words, do I want as many people’s votes as it takes to deliver the result called remain? Here is my answer. The wording of the question put to the British people in 2016 ran as follows:
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union”?
They were not asked: do you favour Boris Johnson’s version of Brexit? Are you happy with Labour’s six conditions? Does the thought of Norway-plus appeal to you? Or Canada-plus? Or Papua New Guinea-plus? How about Mrs May’s Chequers plan, as opposed to her most recent plan? Is full access to the EU’s Galileo satellite navigation system something of a red line for you and your family? What about freedom to immigrate low-skilled workers into the UK, or special provisions for our friends in the DUP when it comes to the very serious issue of the Irish border?
It occurred to me the other day that most people, who do not spend their lives looking at economic analysis and reading policy papers as we do, probably imagine that the Irish backstop is a new rugby move for the forthcoming Six Nations.
Even if I were a fervent Brexiteer—which, thank the Lord, I am not, sir—I would have to conclude that since 2016, Brexit has grown as many heads as the Hydra of Lerna. No general election or referendum result binds the people’s hands forever. It is bogus constitutionalism to argue that anyone, in any one spasm of time, should be bound. The bald truth is that no version of Brexit currently available can possibly claim to be the settled will of the country. So, in the week when the Government have been found in contempt; when the Advocate-General of the ECJ has advised that Britain can unilaterally cancel Brexit; and when Parliament has voted to wrest control from the Executive in the event of no plan B beyond 11 December; I have to say that it is a case of back to the people.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, two years ago almost to the day, on 1 December 2016, I spoke in a debate on the Brexit UK-EU relationship. I said,
“one issue, little debated, is a presumption in discussions about Brexit that the EU is a known, unchanging quantity—an edifice of predictable structure”,—[Official Report, 1/12/16; cols. 342-43.]
and future. Since then—nor in the time before the referendum—I have not seen much serious debate on the stability and constancy of the European Union, in particular on the controlling part played by the Commission. No measuring scenarios, like the Bank of England’s, about political, global or economic crosswinds in the EU are available, let alone any relating to defence threats. Looking to the late 2020s, I would be amazed if there were not significant changes to the EU of today.
Let me cast a few pebbles into this supposedly placid EU lake, and ask: when the ripples reach land, will they disturb the shape of the EU’s shore, acknowledging first that a UK withdrawal itself must wash over the 27? Financially, there will be less for pan-European schemes once the UK departure is complete. Will there be fewer members, if others leave, or more than 27, if some of the minor aspiring nations, or indeed Turkey, join? All that will have financial consequences. If the UK suffers recess, as some predict, surely that will not remain an internal matter, and trade for the EU and others would also be affected and suffer.
How stable is the euro? The one-size-fits-all approach has been exposed to frequent stresses. Not all of the 27 are of a similar political mind about some of the direction that comes from the Commission. Will the Italians be brought to financial heel? Will Spain’s problems with Catalonia be contained? Will the Visegrad states remain acquiescent? German suggestions to replace France on the Security Council with a pan-EU member are hardly conducive to good fraternal relations.
The EU could change greatly—the ripples from my pebble could reach far and wide. For the moment, the EU’s prime focus is to secure a good deal for itself. Indeed, there is a game book for that. Let us remember that commissions faced with an unsatisfactory referendum result, such as in Ireland or Denmark, seek another. Secretly, the EU may be thrilled by homespun ambitions for a second UK referendum. It can only half claim to have spooked it with the current withdrawal agreement.
The backstop is a serious, second referendum-triggering device, were the EU unwilling to agree acceptable trading arrangements. That pebble could cause the UK a constitutional tsunami.
I move to the decision facing the other place next week: should the Government go ahead with it? All expert analyses and predictions fail to deliver a single answer, and reasoning ignores a fundamental: does the EU itself prosper? Risk-averse voters might be guided by a motto of caution: “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”. But with maybe much of £39 billion at risk for the EU, is that roadblock of a backstop still really non-negotiable? Both the UK and the EU seem to dislike it. Everything has its price. Successful punters might try for that.
On balance, an agreement now is best. Commons and Parliament are past masters at saying yes or no to a proposition, but multiple choices in a referendum or in Parliament would be a recipe for disaster. Noble Lords will recall that, when trying to choose one of six options for Lords reform, the Commons could not agree on a single one. Multiple choice is a route to more constitutional mayhem. We have to go for the option available.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, this is a sad day for me. As a young Member of Parliament in 1972, I voted for the European Communities Act, which took us into the European Community, as the Union was then called. Some years later, I served as a European Commissioner, and I look back with pride at the achievements of the European Commission—on behalf of Europe as a whole and of the United Kingdom.
Now, as an elderly Peer, I find myself supporting a proposition to take us out of the European Union. I do so because I respect the result of the 2016 referendum. I believe it is incumbent on us to respect the results of democratic votes. The Government have a duty to seek to bring the wish of the British people into effect, and I think they have done so. They have done so in a manner that certainly costs the country economically—I will come back to that—but that costs us less than might otherwise be the case. It is far from an ideal agreement, but it minimises rather than maximises the costs of our departure.
This short-term consideration is important. I understand, although I do not sympathise with, the Brexiteers’ wish to put as many aspects of membership behind us as possible, but we have been a member of the EU for 45 years. That is as long as Queen Elizabeth I reigned. It is as long as the German Empire from Bismarck to 1918 lasted. It is a very long time, and many aspects of our economic life, domestic as well as international, and much else besides, are inextricably bound up with the EU. The same applies to our security, foreign and defence policies. The sharper the break from the EU, the greater the disruption. The greater the disruption, the greater the cost. The greater the cost, the harder it will be to reorient ourselves to take advantage of the opportunities and overcome the difficulties of being outside the European Union.
Leaving must be a process, not an event, and I believe that the deal before us is an acceptable route to take us out without too much economic damage. There is no getting away from the fact that there will be economic damage. The Treasury and Bank of England assessments and scenarios make that clear. In economic terms, we would be much better off staying in, and there is no surprise in that. The United Kingdom has had an important influence on the construction of the European Union, and the European Union works very much to the advantage of the United Kingdom.
Not only that, any attempt to undo 45 years of being involved in something is bound to come at an economic cost. When systems are as closely integrated as ours is with the rest of the Union, there is bound to be a cost, and I cannot understand the reluctance of Brexiteers to accept that. The Government’s duty is to try to ensure that the short-term cost is managed in a way that opens up as many as possible opportunities for the future and closes down as few as possible. Basically, they have managed to achieve that with this agreement.
Does it carry out the wish of the British people as expressed in the 2016 referendum? I believe that it does. It takes us out of the European Union. It takes us out of a political union. It takes us out of the common agricultural and fisheries policies. We regain control of immigration. The supremacy of the European Court of Justice is brought to an end. As far as is possible in the modern world, we regain control of our own laws.
For all these reasons, I support the deal that the Government have negotiated. I do so for another reason as well. I believe that it provides a basis—and I see few other such bases—to overcome the deep divisions that have opened up in our society and to begin to rebuild the national unity to which the most reverend Primate referred.
As we look at the arguments for and against the deal, as we look at the arguments for and against membership of the European Union, a consideration being lost is the extent to which the unity of this country is being fragmented. Divisions have opened up between regions, classes and interest groups—even within families. There is great urgency to bring the situation to an end and to build for the future.
I support the deal, but if it fails—if the House of Commons rejects it—I will throw my support behind those who will do whatever they can to prevent a crash-out no deal.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has honourably striven to do the impossible: to find a compromise between remainers, for whom Brexit is above all a threat to our economy, and leavers, for whom what matters most is the recovery of our sovereignty. Remainers think that the economic cost of withdrawal on the terms she has negotiated is too great and see the deal as far inferior to remaining in the European Union. They think we should revoke our Article 50 declaration. The reckless among them seek a second referendum. A second referendum would do deep damage to the already battered faith in our politics and put paid to reconciliation in our country for a long time. For leavers, the deal fails to release us from the tentacles of the EU and from the democratic deficit that was built into it at its origins.
It is not only leavers who cannot accept that we should continue, perhaps indefinitely, to be subject, with no power of decision on our part, to rules determined by the EU governing swathes of our national life, including policy on the environment, employment, state aid, competition and even tax; to be subject to the continued jurisdiction of the CJEU as arbiter of the agreement and interpreter of EU laws by which we remain bound; with a separate regime for Northern Ireland; without the right to liberate ourselves at our own volition from the Irish backstop; and locked inside the customs union and the EU’s external tariff wall for as long as the EU wants, with no realistic chance of achieving an independent trade policy. How can we as democrats accept that?
Amid the passions of this debate, in your Lordships’ House we should seek to state the issues accurately. Let us dispose of the canard, as our French friends say, that the demand to take back control masks ugly attitudes towards immigration and a widespread vicious nativism at odds with liberal values and internationalism. Yes, there are racists and xenophobes among those who voted leave; their attitudes are odious. Nobody, however, can sensibly suggest that more than a minuscule proportion of the 17.4 million of our fellow countrymen who voted to leave were such bigots. It does not follow that, if you want to extricate your country from the undemocratic structures of the European Union, you are illiberal or insular.
The evidence published in April by the Nuffield Centre for Social Investigation confirms that the paramount concern of leavers is sovereignty: our right to make our own laws through our own representative institutions of government, accountable to our people, together with the supremacy of our own courts. We see this clearly now in the reaction of leavers to the withdrawal agreement. It ends free movement from the EU into the UK. If immigration was their key concern, leavers would be welcoming the agreement, but they are not. They are objecting that the withdrawal agreement does not allow us to take back control and to recover the sovereignty that we lent to the EU through the European Communities Act 1972.
Let us also have a realistic debate about no deal, on which the Motion in the name of my noble friend invites us to focus. The Government are right to prepare for no deal, and in no spirit of trepidation. They would be right also to prepare to protect those in poverty who are at risk of particular suffering during the transition, a point that the most reverend Primate made very powerfully. But no deal certainly need not be a disaster or a catastrophe, as so many noble Lords insist. It need not mean crashing out or a cliff edge. There would be no need for aeroplanes to stop flying, for Kent to become a lorry park, for supply chains to seize up, for medicines to be unobtainable and for food to be rationed, as the litany goes. We would not face the Bank of England’s worst-case scenario of a disorderly exit, which is, as the former governor, the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, has noted, based on entirely unrealistic assumptions.
Appendix A of the Bank’s response to the Treasury Committee, entitled “Impact on the UK economy of a transition to WTO”, offers a no-deal scenario that we can well live with. Philip Aldrick, economics editor of the Times, has helpfully translated the Bank’s technical prognostications into relatively plain English. In this scenario, he explains, we go to WTO rules after a smooth transition in January 2021, retaining for ourselves the EU’s existing 90 external trade deals; sterling falls by 8.5%; we welcome a net 85,000 immigrants—tens of thousands—into Britain annually; and our GDP is 5.25% less in 2023 than if we had remained in the EU. Under the Prime Minister’s deal GDP would be 3.75% less. The difference between the Prime Minister’s deal and an orderly no deal is just 1.5% of GDP.
Remainers assert that people did not vote to be poorer. With the orderly no deal projected by the Bank, they will not be poorer than they were; they will be somewhat less wealthier than they might have been. Leavers, who voted to leave despite the lurid warnings of the first project fear, will be happy to pay that price for the restoration of their sovereignty.
It is in the interests of the peoples and businesses of the EU to avoid chaos and agree an orderly no deal with us. The EU has already offered to reciprocate air traffic rights and aviation safety certificates, and in its own interests it will surely act sensibly in relation to road transport. Any additional checks would be very limited. There will be no legal requirement to inspect every vehicle or to carry out checks at the border itself, and anyway there will not be enough staff and equipment to check more than a minute proportion of vehicles. Indeed, new EU-imposed non-tariff barriers will be illegal under WTO rules so long as our products exported into the EU are still made to the same standards.
It is objected that under WTO rules and without the customs union, there must be a hard border within the island of Ireland. That problem has been greatly overstated and I do not believe that the Good Friday agreement would be in jeopardy. The Permanent Secretary at HMRC has made it clear that there is no need for the UK to erect a hard border in any scenario. Nor, as they have said, will the Republic or the EU impose one.
The US and China trade with the EU on WTO rules. We can do likewise. Better, of course, would be the rapid conclusion of a free trade deal with the EU. Given where we start from and based on the EU’s deal with Canada, that is entirely possible. EU countries that sell us £300 billion of exports will be impatient for the EU to reach a free trade deal with us. That is what the Government must now work for.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, much has been said in this House about the Irish situation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, reminded us of some of the things that happened in the bad old days, when members of the judiciary were attacked. Indeed, a Member of this House who held that role found a bomb under his car. Fortunately, he discovered it and it was disarmed. We get the very strong message that the noble and learned Lord has set out.
With this deal in front of us, I find myself in a virtually impossible position. I want to see a deal with the European Union, but that does not mean that I oppose the decision of the British people to vote for Brexit. After all, it seems to be forgotten that this Parliament provided them with that opportunity. The concerns that many Members are currently expressing were not expressed at the time, even though some of the options could have been foreseen. In many respects, complaining now that the rules should be changed after the match is over does not fall well, because we, as a Parliament, let it take place.
During that campaign we had grossly exaggerated claims from either side: it was a poor-quality debate and an unedifying spectacle. As a consequence of what was said on both sides, the economic forecasts that people are now bandying around in all directions have little or no credibility with the general public. Given the fact that most of those who are making them cannot even anticipate 12 months ahead, let alone 15 years ahead, that will come as little surprise to some of us.
I gently remind the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, that when we talk about getting a good deal and preparing for negotiation, her party leader called for the immediate triggering of Article 50 after the referendum—that was before we had even had a chance to think our way through.
While I would prefer to look at this in a pan-Unionist position from the whole of the United Kingdom, because so much of it has been focused on my Province’s position, it is inevitable that that will guide what I do next week. I fear that the whole border question has been grossly exaggerated. The real border between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland is between Dublin and Holyhead. At a recent meeting I was at, the Irish ambassador publicly said that between 80% and 90% of Irish goods go to or via Great Britain to reach European markets and the British market. Only 1.6% of its exports go to Northern Ireland and only 1.6% of its imports come from Northern Ireland. There are, of course, goods in transit, and most of the trade is in agricultural products, alcohol and other matters. The point is that the real border is between Dublin and Holyhead. That is where goods in volume go, yet it has hardly ever been mentioned in this debate.
I have to say that while the Prime Minister cannot be faulted for her work ethic—far from it—my party wrote to her on 7 December last year, and after the European Union produced its papers in March, to seek assurances. On 8 December, some people in Northern Ireland put out statements to say that there would be no regulatory differences between any parts of the United Kingdom. They were proved wrong. There will be differences. Indeed, a new manufacturing logo called “UKNI” will be developed to show that a product is made exclusively in Northern Ireland.
I would like the Minister in his wind up to address this: the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland made clear that we will not be free of the jurisdiction of the European court. We will still be guided by its decisions and we will not be free to make the trade deals that we want as a country. I also hear people say, “Well, we’ll get back control of our fishing policy”. In theory, yes, but in practice, if you have been listening to President Macron and others, you will know that everybody will have their slice of the cake when it comes to it. To put ourselves in a position where we are incapable as a nation of taking a decision, whether it is on our trade or our foreign and other polices, without having other people mark our homework is quite concerning.
I have listened very carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, the Lord Advocate and a leading Queen’s Counsel. He stood here the other day and talked about this arbitration process and using best endeavours. I am a veteran of the Belfast agreement: it contained “best endeavours” and stated that some people would use their influence. Instead of taking two years for them to use that influence, it took nine years—indeed, it is not clear that it has been used.
To my friends in the Government I say this. I understand that some people are bored with this and say that we have to do it because it is on the table. It may be on the table, but I fear that it is not the right deal for this country at this time, and it certainly breaks the red lines that the Prime Minister gave us assurances about in December last year and in March this year—that there would be no barriers or border up the Irish Sea. There will be. We will be in a different place, and if the agreement goes through as it is now, in 15 years’ time, that difference will widen. Once we get into this backstop—I wish it were a rugby move, as the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, put it—we will be very lucky ever to get out of it.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the situation is changing even as we speak. Yesterday we heard the legal advice given to the European Court that Article 50 could be unilaterally withdrawn by this country to put us back where we were—an unsurprising opinion, given the federal push of that court. Given these options of going back, “Macbeth” sprang to mind:
“I am in blood
Stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o’er”.
That is one of my themes. I should also add that I do not think the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, helps us. It is unconstructive and provides no solutions.
This national debate is not just about the economy. It is not even about whether we will speculatively be poorer. For leavers, it is about the recovery of self-determination and self-respect, democratic governance, the rule of law and respect for human rights, all of which have been under attack by and within the European Union. It is in that light that we must consider the withdrawal agreement, which is more about European survival than anything else. As others have explained, it takes all the money on the table, but holds us in a customs union, potentially for ever, through the backstop, unless we accept whatever departure terms the EU may dictate. Withdrawal is indeed like a divorce. One side will be paying up indefinitely so that the other can keep up the style of living to which it is accustomed. We have no need to see the legal opinion that was extorted yesterday. It was obvious.
I do not believe the professions of wishing the backstop to be short term. The Joint Committee will be weighted towards Europe and unaccountable and its meetings will be confidential. It is unacceptable to have the ECJ involved in arbitration over whether we could leave the backstop. As I have said before, it is a court with a federalist mission, with judges on short-term contracts with vast salaries and pensions—a system that would be unacceptable here—who have recently made judgments, such as upholding the non-disclosure of MEPs’ expenses and the clamping down on gene-edited crops, that are simply wrong. It is no impartial arbiter.
The protocol locking the UK in without a right to leave is unique and unprecedented in trade treaty law. Will the Government persuade the PM and the EU to drop the backstop? Perhaps the Minister can assure us that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties will enable us unilaterally to withdraw from the withdrawal agreement, as I believe it does, because, as that treaty specifies, withdrawal is possible unilaterally when it is contemplated and when there is, as there probably will be, a profound change of circumstances.
As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, it is sad that threats of terrorism should affect our policy, but my reading is that the agreement will make Northern Ireland subject to Dublin’s influence. It is likely that unification is the only answer to the inflexible approach now being taken. Perhaps that was always what was in the Republic’s mind. Northern Ireland’s democracy is being taken away; it will remain subject to EU law and control without having a vote, which is contrary to human rights. Either the EU should accept British bona fides on avoiding a hard border or the technology that we know is available should be presaged in the agreement. Were there to be a clean break, the EU could force Ireland to conduct checks at the border. This might be the very shock needed to make Ireland find ways to arrange checks away from the border. A clean break might be better for Northern Ireland than this agreement.
As in a bad divorce, the financial obligations will continue long past any commitment of the parties to each other. The meal ticket for life encompasses our meeting commitments entered into in 2020 and 2021—a great temptation to the EU to commit to as many programmes as it can in this period while we will have no vote but have to pay. We will have to meet the pension obligations incurred for the lifetime of the pensioners and their dependants. All these sums will be calculated by the EU. The Union law referred to in the agreement includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in blatant contradiction to Parliament’s decision not to include that charter in the carrying over of EU law after March. All in all, our sovereignty has not been reclaimed. It is even more diminished, and the rule of law is compromised by the uncertain scope of articles referring final decisions to bodies outside this country and not under our control.
Would a second referendum help? Quite apart from the difficulties in arranging one and deciding what the questions should be, it would create further constitutional complexities. To hold another drains the last of its legitimacy; it means none is legitimate. A referendum’s legitimacy lies in its one-off quality—it is monogamy compared with bigamy or polygamy.
If we leavers were regarded as ignorant and misled in 2016, how can any voter in a hypothetical second referendum be regarded as competent unless they have read the 585 pages of the agreement, are able to choose between four or five options and have got to grips with the backstop, the customs union and the single market? In any case, it is likely that leave would win again, because if there is one element that even a staunch remainer will not stomach, it is being bullied into changing their mind under a barrage of state propaganda. The British voters remember how the Dutch and Greek nay-voters were treated, and up with this they will not put. Threats, inducements and speculative financial prognoses will not work.
We cannot accept an agreement about the future of the country that forbids us to leave without the permission of the other party. That is exactly the situation that leavers have been trying to escape for decades. We want to live under a safe, legitimate rule of law. If the Government cannot or will not drop the backstop and are not prepared to rely on the international law of treaties to assure a way out, we must have a clean break. That would be better than being chained to the decaying body that is the EU. We could abide by WTO rules and let the EU discover that its greed will ultimately lead to its losses.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury quoted the King James Bible when he spoke. I offer a quote from a rather different hymn sheet, as it were:
“Welcome to the Hotel California … You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave”.
That Eagles hit from 1976 rather aptly describes the one flaw in the Government’s exit proposal. If you do not have the right to walk away, you are permanently held hostage in any negotiation. I wish we were not here. I voted to stay in the EU.
It is claimed the backstop will not be needed and agreements will be negotiated well before the end date. If that is the case, why is it there? Do any other EU treaties have no exit clause or threaten to break up a country? I think not.
In the last few weeks, we have seen how the Spanish raised the issue of Gibraltar. The French want a permanent right to fish in our waters. Among the 27, there are bound to be others who want to gain something from the negotiations—not necessarily from us, but by holding the negotiations hostage and blocking the agreement. Angela Merkel will not be in power. Junker and Barnier will have moved on. President Macron is hardly flavour of the month in France. Other EU Governments will have been replaced by new Administrations.
Some have claimed that we can just walk away from a treaty. I think not. I leave it to lawyers cleverer than I to deal with that proposition, as I am sure they will.
As we have heard during this debate, the Labour Party, the Lib Dems, the DUP, the SNP and many Conservatives will vote to reject the deal next week in the House of Commons. The Government will be forced to reconsider. A hard Brexit is not the only option. It is reported that the EU will negotiate. It is in its interests to do so. A hard Brexit is bad for the EU and terrible for us.
If the EU agrees for the backstop to be moved from the agreement to the political declaration, I believe the agreement could get through Parliament. The Irish would have to back down, but after all they have the most to lose from a hard Brexit. The Labour Party’s six tests could be met.
There are other solutions; they are more complex and difficult to achieve. As we have heard and read, the Government could assert our rights under the EEA treaty to remain part of the EEA after Brexit, and apply to join EFTA. It would be a kind of Norway-plus. We could remain in the customs union. That could include services, which make up the majority of our GDP. Further negotiations on a Canadian-style deal could continue until the Irish border question is resolved. That probably passes Labour’s six tests as well. We would keep our fishing, which removes the SNP’s block. More importantly, it maintains the integrity of the United Kingdom, which is crucial for the DUP, as we have heard from the noble Lords. We would be outside the common agricultural policy and not subject to the ECJ—a core issue at the start of the negotiations. We would be subject to the EFTA Court for disputes and would have only limited mechanisms to restrict free movement, but that would be a small price to pay for not harming our economy or undermining the union.
It is not a perfect solution and has many disadvantages. I suppose it is a halfway house—Norway-plus—but it might command a parliamentary majority. Those in favour of Brexit would see it as the first stage of perhaps a Canadian-style deal. I am not in favour of another referendum; it would be a last resort and it really would show the collective failure of government and Parliament. However, it would be difficult to argue against a referendum if there is no workable deal—if there is a logjam. Imagine the chaos of the referendum, with a pro-remain Prime Minister leading a largely leave party, and a pro-Brexit leader of the Opposition leading a largely remain party. The result would be utter chaos. We really should avoid that.
There may be other solutions, and I am sure there are better solutions than the ones I have suggested, but we should consider all options. We cannot allow Brexit fatigue to allow us to stumble exhaustedly into a bad outcome. Following the vote in another place next week, I hope the Government will seize the opportunity to go back to the EU and renegotiate the backstop. Doing so would make the deal workable and good for this country and generations going forward.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I first place on record my personal thanks to the clerks and advisers of the EU Select Committee, of which I am a member, and to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, who chairs it extremely well, for producing an excellent analysis of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. We all owe them thanks. Of course, we now have to come to a political view of where we go next.
The diminishing band of supporters of the Prime Minister’s deal are essentially repeating that Victorian ditty “cling to nurse for fear of something worse”. That is the best argument they think they can give. Last week, they were saying, “It’s this deal, no deal or no Brexit”. After yesterday, it looks as though the choice is becoming, “No deal, no Brexit, or something we will cobble together in the next fortnight or so”.
The fact is that, despite months, or even years, of interminable debate in the Government, there is no clarity in this deal about the future economic relationship, or the security relationship. I do not know how the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, is able to describe it as presenting a clear vision; there is no clear vision. There is tremendous confusion about the Northern Ireland backstop. At one point we are told it is temporary and will never happen, then we are told it is wonderful because it gives us tariff-free access to the single market without any of the obligations. Let us be clear: what the EU is offering in the declaration is tariff-free access, but that is not the frictionless trade on which our manufacturers depend. The fact is that if there is any regulatory divergence we will face full inspections and border checks: this is what the Brexiteers call taking back control.
Some think that we can move to a Canada-plus agreement, but I think that is impossible. For the EU 27, that now conjures up a bad joke: Boris Johnson, in some cartoonist’s pose, trying to have his cake and eat it. They are fed up with that. They have had their fill of this British attempt to have it both ways.
Is a better exit deal possible? There is a lot of talk about EEA membership at the moment. I am a bit of a sceptic as to whether it can be done now. If the Government—and indeed the Opposition Front Bench, I have to say—had come out for Norway as soon as we had had the referendum, then the EU might have welcomed that with open arms and on the back of that solid economic foundation we could have built a strong vision of co-operation and partnership. But now, after two years having had to deal with this Government and all its divisions, they think that half the party opposite is not interested in a long-term relationship of co-operation and partnership, so the chance that they are going to pay heed to Michael Gove’s idea of, “Let’s have Norway for now”, is frankly laughable.
The choice comes down to no deal or a referendum with a clear choice to remain as the only way to draw a line under this ghastly episode in our history. Some say that this would be a defiance of democracy. I do not see how putting something to the people is a defiance of democracy—they have a big deficiency of logic to explain. There may be a problem with people who voted to leave being disillusioned as a result of a second referendum that voted to remain. For me, that is a big reason why this next referendum, if it happens, cannot simply be a vote for the status quo: it also has to be a vote for a new deal for the left-behind communities of Britain and a new push for real reform in Europe—not the Europe we have, but the Europe that could be.
Some of my Labour colleagues worry about this because their constituents voted to leave. I want to address a few remarks to them. How can you meet an obligation to your constituents if you know that what you are voting for will damage their economic prospects, their life prospects, and destroy decent jobs? It will put a future Labour Government in a position where there is far less money to spend on vital public services. People say, what about free movement? Again, while there may be some short-term political benefit in low-skilled migration being cut, in the longer term, in an ageing society with a contracting workforce, this will mean fewer people to tend to the sick and helpless. How will we make our ambitious plans for the NHS work if we cannot get the labour to do the caring? We have to think again.
How can social democrats in this country betray all those young people, of all social classes, who see Europe as part of their destiny, who regard free movement not as a burden but as an immense freedom that they enjoy and who sense that the only wat Britain can play its part in meeting the great global challenges of our time is by close co-operation with those neighbours who share our values and interests? The next days and weeks will test whether Labour remains true to its international heritage or whether it submits to an unthinking populism. I hope very much, and believe, that the representatives of the party of conscience and reform will rise to their responsibilities.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, there have been occasions in the past two years when I have reminded myself that the Vote Leave campaign’s personnel overlaps with that of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the TaxPayers’ Alliance and other right- wing think tanks. After all, the Global Policy Warming Foundation has made its entire pitch by denying the evidence in front of it, and the TaxPayers’ Alliance by promising that taxes can be cut without cutting public services, while promising at the same time that spending on the NHS can be increased. I fear that the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, promising an orderly no-deal exit came into something of the same category. I recommend to him Sir Roger Gale’s speech in yesterday’s Commons debate. As a Kent MP, he was talking about the implications of an unavoidably disorderly no deal.
Now we have this deal in front of us, which is justified on three grounds: that it restores British sovereignty; that it will, eventually, allow the UK to negotiate independent trade deals with third countries; and that it will save us the money that we have contributed to the shared EU budget, from which the Prime Minister keeps implying we get nothing back. It does none of those things. British sovereignty cannot be absolute in an overpopulated and interdependent world. Since we joined the European Community two generations ago, our economy has become highly integrated with those of our neighbours and other industrialised countries and significantly foreign owned. We are dependent on the good will of American, German, Japanese, French and now also Chinese multinational companies for our continued prosperity. Our media and our football clubs also have a high proportion of foreign owners, personnel and players, yet Brexit campaigners insist that the overwhelming threat to British independence comes from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Escape from that, and we will be free and independent.
There is no evidence to support the myth that the UK on its own will be able to negotiate better trade agreements than those it benefits from within the EU, nor that there is a significant group of third countries committed to free trade in contrast to an allegedly protectionist EU. President Trump is actively undermining the WTO and threatening a trade war between the USA and China. Nor is there any likelihood that major trade deals can be completed within the short transition period we have negotiated with the EU. Margaret Thatcher understood that the creation of the single market offered Britain the world’s largest open market for frictionless trade. This agreement’s rejection of the single market rejects her legacy.
Nowhere in the British debate, before the referendum or since, has any supporter of Brexit admitted the link between Margaret Thatcher’s Bruges speech of 1988, which I remember well, and our net contribution. She argued passionately that Prague, Warsaw and the other capitals of eastern Europe are also part of our historic European region. Since the Berlin Wall fell, a rising proportion of the payments that Britain, together with Germany, the Netherlands, France and the other net contributors, has put into the common budget has gone towards the stabilisation of eastern Europe, thus contributing to our own and our shared security. Let us remind ourselves that Norway has been contributing heavily as well. We have also contributed to shared resources, such as the EU technical agencies and the common research budget, from which we have benefited a great deal. As we prepare to leave, the Government are recruiting, at substantial extra cost, thousands of extra civil servants and setting up national agencies to replace what we are losing, and if we really want to control our borders we also need a large increase in the Border Force and in maritime patrol.
Margaret Thatcher also cared deeply about Britain’s place in the world. She understood that close relations with France and Germany, as well as with the USA, are central to Britain’s international standing. Those who claim to be her successors today interpret “global Britain” as a country that turns its back on continental Europe and pursues independent partnerships with China, India, the Middle Eastern monarchies and, of course, the Anglo-Saxon world, rather than grounding our global role in our European context.
It is extraordinary that a Conservative Party that used to stand for a strong British foreign policy has failed to spell out any coherent alternative rationale for our international role in the two years of drift since the referendum. There is no vision and no strategy. The political declaration offers only vague phrases on any framework for future foreign policy co-ordination.
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, in arguing that the Government are neglecting the domestic problems that lay behind the English majority that voted to leave the EU. IPPR North yesterday published figures showing that public spending cuts across the north of England—the regions that voted most heavily for Brexit—have been much deeper than in Scotland, Wales, London or the south-east. The OECD last week showed that Britain and the United States are by far the lowest spenders on labour market training among industrial democracies, which means we continue to rely on recruiting immigrants directly to fill skilled positions. The Chancellor nevertheless recently repeated his promise that taxes will be cut further, following the small-state ideology of the libertarian right and the TaxPayers’ Alliance—from which, I was surprised to read, the Leader of the House has apparently recruited her new spad.
If we are to bring the country back together, we need a long-term strategy to invest in this country’s most deprived towns and regions, whatever the outcome of our current political crisis over the EU. If we are to pursue the reconciliation for which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury rightly calls to heal the wounds that the 2016 referendum exposed, we have to tackle inequality, poverty and social divisions within this country. It will be easier to achieve that reconciliation if we sustain the foundations for Britain’s long-term prosperity and security within the EU rather than through this flawed deal.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I rise to address the vexing Northern Irish backstop issue. I should perhaps first say that I entirely accept the Government’s good-faith desire to deal with the difficulties created for the Irish Republic by Brexit—in particular, their desire to avoid a hard border in Ireland.
The Government indicated before last Christmas that there are no circumstances in which they would create anything that might be described as a hard border in Ireland—none at all. There are no circumstances even now, including a no-deal Brexit. We have greatly exercised ourselves, not so much to prevent a hard border on our side but to ensure that the EU will not tell the Irish Government, “You must establish a border on your side”. Maybe we were right to do it, but we should be absolutely clear that that is what we have been doing. We have put ourselves through a lot of pain to do it, and I absolutely accept it is right to be sensitive to the needs and problems created for Ireland by Brexit.
We ought to be clear about exactly what we have done and why, and not talk in too general terms. Even the noble Baroness the Leader of the House this morning made another, more generalised statement that this is being done to save the Good Friday agreement. She knows my admiration for her, and I have spent significant time with her. Having grown up in Northern Ireland, I know her understanding of and sympathy for Northern Irish issues. But there is one great problem with the backstop: it does not protect the Good Friday agreement. The reason is twofold. First, if people do not have democratic control upwards—the Matthews European Court of Human Rights case raised this issue in the context of Gibraltar in 1999—you have a problem. I turned to the Attorney-General’s advice this morning to read if there was any reference to the Matthews case, which clearly bears on the situation envisaged in the backstop. There is no such reference.
The Good Friday agreement is profoundly based on a bottom-up approach to north/south regulatory arrangements, not a top-down approach. The backstop is a top-down imposition on how Northern Ireland matters will be handled in future. There is a huge gap between the Good Friday agreement and the backstop; there is no avoiding it. I was myself much involved in the period between 1993 and 1998 in the struggle for the Good Friday agreement, and I spent much ink writing newspaper articles to convince the unionist community that you could have a north/south arrangement that did not automatically drag you into the orbit of the Irish Republic—that there were areas in which you could co-operate pragmatically, and that this would work. The great achievement of the Good Friday agreement since 1998 has been that these areas have grown without controversy; they have created little tension, and what tension we have had is all to do with other issues such as decommissioning and the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. It is quite remarkable how successful this has been. The objective was to end the cold war between the north and the south and we did so, but that is not the model in the backstop. It is absolutely clear that the model of the Good Friday agreement is not the model in the backstop.
We could look at this another way and talk about the disappearance of paragraph 50 from the text of the December agreement. The Prime Minister, even after Salzburg, explicitly referred to her support for paragraph 50, which places the Northern Ireland Assembly at the centre of north/south regulatory developments and the relationship with the EU. But it is not in the final version of the report. You could say that there is a category problem here: that EU law is dealing in a clunky way with nation states, that it has difficulty dealing with the subtleties of political agreements in Northern Ireland and so on, and that the language is creating a problem. You could say that the many references in the document to defending the Good Friday agreement in all its parts must mean that people understand that at its centre, the agreement say that, on issues such as north/south regulatory alignment and harmonisation, you must have “the specific endorsement of the Northern Ireland Assembly”. You could say that they know all that is there, and that is what they mean by supporting all aspects of the Good Friday agreement. You could say that they have read paragraph 17 of the Good Friday agreement, which says explicitly on the matter of EU issues that the Northern Ireland Assembly must play the key role in determining how this develops. You could say it—unless you have read what the backstop on agriculture actually says.
Article 10 of the backstop provides that the EU law on agriculture and environment should apply in full in Northern Ireland and that to enforce EU law, neither the UK Government nor the Northern Irish Government are allowed to carry out checks on farming in Northern Ireland. That is precisely the area, by the way, where the agreement has worked so well up to now—protecting animal health on the island of Ireland. It was one of the models, and it has worked like a dream. Now, however, the British Government are explicitly not allowed to carry out checks if there could be an animal disease such as mad cow disease on a farm in Ballymena, for example, and nor can the Northern Irish Government. That is how the agreement is interpreted in Northern Ireland. The language is absolutely explicit: it is repeated at page 429 of the withdrawal agreement and in two or three other places. Why it is there, I have no particular idea.
To be honest, the hope is that the EU does not care too much about this point, but it is a sign that we are getting very close to infringing the basic principles of the agreement. You can defend this on lots of grounds, some of which I absolutely accept, but you cannot defend it on the grounds that it is defending the Good Friday agreement. It is constructed on an entirely different principle: top-down, not bottom-up. This is a huge difficulty that will have to be attended to; otherwise, we lose the template of the Good Friday agreement, which all parties in Northern Ireland accept. Even now, when we cannot make it work, everybody accepts that that is the basic template for a settlement. If we throw it away, which will be the effect of going along these lines, we will be taking a massive risk with the stability of Northern Ireland.
I read the Attorney-General’s legal advice this morning in the hope that some of these issues would be addressed. It is extremely interesting legal advice but nothing is said about the implications of the 1999 Matthews case—the Gibraltar case—which raises these issues. Nothing is said about the obvious conflict between the core principles of the agreement—the text of the agreement—and the principles in the withdrawal agreement on the backstop. I really hope that the Minister, when he concludes, can give me clarification and reassurance on this matter, but on the face of it, there is a conflict.
Syria
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness D’Souza
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support and provide resources for reconstruction programmes in Syria.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, while the conflict in Syria is ongoing, the UK’s focus is on delivering life-saving humanitarian aid to those affected. At the same time, we are making every effort to achieve a political settlement that ends the suffering and helps provide stability for all Syrians in the wider region.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. The needs in Syria today are both huge and urgent. More than 50% of medical and educational facilities are in ruins, as is some 30% of the housing. But some organisations are operating in Syria outside the Assad regime; for example: MSF, the White Helmets, Syria Relief and the umbrella body UOSSM. In addition, the ICRC, which holds a long-standing tradition of neutrality and therefore responds to need wherever it finds it, is doing what it can to ensure continued access to essential services including, in some areas, infrastructure services. These bodies cannot always tick all the boxes that DfID requires to release aid, but they do provide accountability through multiple networks at ground level. Will the Government commit to some flexibility in allowing aid via these channels, so that what infrastructure remains can be maintained and further deterioration prevented?
Lord Bates
Certainly I recognise the figures that the noble Baroness outlined about the damage to infrastructure, which were set out in the World Bank’s Toll of War report. I can also confirm that British taxpayers have contributed some £2.71 billion since 2012, making us the second-largest contributor—and this our largest response to any humanitarian situation. When funding goes into a conflict situation, there is a well-established protocol that extra layers of due diligence and tests are needed. If that is not the case, funding to provide humanitarian aid could be diverted into perpetuating the very conflict that we are seeking to resolve. That is the reason that the restrictions and tests are so strict, but we continue to keep the discussions under review and will hopefully work with respected partners in the future.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, estimates of the costs of reconstruction range from $250 billion and $1 trillion. As Russia is responsible for much of the damage, directly and indirectly, has there been any indication at all that it is prepared to pay its share of the costs of reconstruction?
Lord Bates
There has not been any indication of that and, of course, the conflict is ongoing. It is vital that all parties to the conflict bring their efforts to bear to stop the ongoing suffering. We believe that, while the suffering and conflict continue, there cannot be a meaningful discussion about how to begin the reconstruction, because that requires a Government we can deal with, and we do not have one at the moment.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
What assurances do the Government have that funds going to programmes run by the UN via Damascus are carried out according to core principles of development and transparency, and do not benefit the Syrian regime’s cronies?
Lord Bates
As I was saying, that is kept under review by DfID, by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact and by the National Audit Office. ICAI produced its report in May this year. It found that we were doing what we could in very difficult circumstances. The reality on the ground is that the checks that have to be made are being made in a context that is not Switzerland but Syria in the middle of a conflict situation. It is very difficult to get a 100% level of assurance while still helping people in need.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, given the powerful words of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales at yesterday’s service in Westminster Abbey to mark the contribution of Christians to the Middle East, and in particular His Royal Highness’s moving account of Christians returning to Syria to rebuild not only their homes and schools but their gifts to society—schools, orphanages and hospitals—can the Minister give an assurance that responsible organisations that provide support for returning Christians and other minorities also have the support of the Government? Will the Minister join me in commending the Muslim children who will be joining Christian children to light 1 million candles on New Year’s Day as a sign of their hope for their country and for a shared future together?
Lord Bates
I am very happy to do that. It is indeed a message of hope in this situation. I had the opportunity yesterday to meet some of the clergy and patriarchal representatives who were visiting that initiative. I pay tribute to all involved in organising it. Their stories of what was going on on the ground and what they had gone through were quite horrific and a testament to their ability to keep their light flickering in the darkness that surrounds them.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister ensure that adequate aid is given to the areas controlled by the Syrian Government? Many thousands of Syrians of all faiths wish to return to their homes in these areas because they are now safe from jihadist attacks, but they desperately need help with reconstruction. On a related issue, given that massive amounts of UK aid money has been given to jihadist-related organisations in Syria, as illustrated by the BBC “Panorama” programme, will the Government publish information on who are the recipients of UK taxpayers’ money?
Lord Bates
I must say to the noble Business that I completely reject the accusation that funding has been going to jihadist organisations. That is not borne out at all by the investigations that we have carried out. We have very strict procedures in place. But it is a terribly difficult situation and above all we need all parties to put maximum pressure on the parties to the conflict to rekindle the UN Geneva process so that we can move towards a credible political solution.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister’s response in relation to ensuring ongoing humanitarian support. In this conflict that has to be our number one priority. Can the Minister update the House, particularly on the Rukban camp on the Jordan border, where we were able to get aid and support in at the beginning of November? What is the latest situation and what are we doing with the Government of Jordan to ensure that support is given also to those who cross the border?
Lord Bates
It is a particularly difficult situation there. One humanitarian aid convoy got in in November, but that is nowhere near enough to provide for the people there. We are seeking to remind the Syrian regime of its obligations under international humanitarian law to allow access. We are also working with Jordan and as part of that we will be hosting a Jordan conference in London on 28 February next year, where we hope to make progress on a whole range of those issues.
Diesel Emissions
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to raise awareness among the general public of the health impacts of emissions from diesel vehicles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, the Government raise awareness of the effects of air pollution, including from diesel vehicles, via the UK Air website and through supporting activities such as the annual clean air day. Furthermore, the Department for Transport’s Road to Zero strategy contains a range of policies aimed at reducing the use of diesel in transport and therefore the harms that flow from it.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, despite the work that the Minister has outlined, many people are still not aware of this problem. We are condemning young children to a lifetime of ill health because of this invisible threat, and they are particularly vulnerable to the effect of emissions during the school run. Will the Minister commit to having discussions with the Department for Transport to ensure that emission levels outside schools are tested frequently and that suitable warning signs are displayed when necessary, and will the Government introduce a ban on engine idling for vehicles waiting outside schools?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that this is an issue of concern. It is a concern to all of us and it is certainly a concern to those of us with school-age children in urban areas, who experience the pollution every day. First, the UK has made progress on reducing pollutants, although clearly there is a long way to go, and in specific urban areas the problem is much worse than in others. Secondly, I point the noble Baroness to the clean air strategy, which will be published at the end of this year. It will contain a range of measures aimed at reducing pollution and, as a consequence, the public health damage that comes from it. I shall certainly feed in her comments about the importance of targeting these benefits on schools.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, earlier this year the World Health Organization Science Panel reclassified diesel exhaust as a carcinogen, underlining that many cases of lung cancer could be connected to the contaminant and that exhaust could become as important a public health hazard as passive smoking. The European Public Health Alliance has pointed to the urgent need to develop research into the possible impact on other health conditions such as diabetes and dementia. Can the Minister tell the House what action is being taken in response to the WHO declaration and what research funding and programmes are in place to address the growing concerns on this issue?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness is quite right: it is one of the biggest public health problems that we face. It is associated with around 30,000 deaths a year, and that gives us a sense of the scale of the problem. I mentioned the clean air strategy but two specific important pieces of research are also taking place. One is called the Exploration of Health and Lungs in the Environment, which is a London-based study looking at the links between pollution and children’s lung health. The Department of Health and Social Care has also commissioned a review of adverse birth outcomes and early-life effects associated with exposure to air pollution. Therefore, we take this problem seriously and are commissioning research to know not only the consequences but what to do about it.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, it is my understanding that much of the responsibility for delivering the clean air strategy will be delegated to local authorities. Can the Minister confirm that local authorities will be given both the necessary legal powers and the resources to deliver that strategy?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Lord is quite right that local authorities will have a critical role. The clean air strategy is supported by the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England, but it is Defra’s responsibility. I am not able to say any more than that at the moment, but it is clearly a very important strategy being led by the Government, and we will make sure that we support local authorities to do their bit.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
As the noble Lord said, local authorities are being supported by Public Health England in reducing their pollution levels. Can the Minister tell the House which local authorities are non-compliant and whether there are any sanctions for this, and what form the support from Public Health England takes?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
We provide a range of support. In fact, my colleague, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Primary Care, wrote to directors of public health in October to remind them of their responsibilities and to make sure that they focus on this issue. Just yesterday, our Deputy Chief Medical Officer held a round table with stakeholders and others in local government to think about how we can improve policy and communicate locally with people to make sure that they understand the consequences of things such as idling and other unnecessary uses of diesel.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the news that there will be research in London. Will any assessment be made of the number of deaths and the damage to health in London due to Boris Johnson’s refusal to apply the congestion charge to west London?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The important issue is that, whoever holds the post, the Mayor of London has the power to take action. It is notable that that has not been reinstated by a Labour Mayor of London, so maybe there was something in that decision in the first place.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while electric cars are being developed, trees, plants, shrubs and especially hedges can make a very useful contribution to the absorption of harmful emissions, as well as having a therapeutic value for those who grow them and those who enjoy them? Can he tell us of any plans the Government may have to encourage the greening of our towns and cities?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The right reverend Prelate makes an excellent point, with which I completely concur. We are making good progress in increasing the number of ultra-low emission cars. There is a huge amount that we can do to green our cities. I know that this is a priority of both the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Defra. They will have specific details, and I will write to him with an answer.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, harmful emissions are caused by traffic in queues, particularly in London, as a result of the new bicycle lanes, but also as a result of the inordinate number of roadworks, which are taking place in an unco-ordinated way. Can the Government find any research to prove these results, and can they do anything about the co-ordination of roadworks?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I shall take that point to my noble friend the Minister for Transport, and I am sure that she will have an excellent answer, as she does for all these questions. I am not sure that I agree with my noble friend on the point about bicycle lanes. They are well-used, and bicycling is very good for your health.
Religious Hate Speech
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether section 29J of the Public Order Act 1986 remains in force, and if so, what is the basis in statute for the offence of religious hate speech.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986 relates to hatred against persons on religious or sexual orientation grounds. Section 29J provides that Part 3A should not be interpreted in a way that prohibits discussion or encouragement to cease practising of particular religions or beliefs. There is no criminal offence in the UK of hate speech.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. However, I fear that we are on our way to losing our freedom of speech in this area. I repeat a question I put a year ago, which the Government refused to answer: namely, whether a Christian who proclaims that Jesus is the only Son of the one true God can be arrested for hate speech if a Muslim feels insulted and complains to the police. By the same token, can a Muslim be arrested for preaching the supreme divinity of Allah if a Christian takes offence?
Secondly, can the Government assure your Lordships that they will not follow a new judgment from the Strasbourg court, which upholds Austria’s criminalisation of a lady who said that Muhammad was a paedophile? Or are we to have a new blasphemy law that prohibits discussion of Islam?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord asked me a hypothetical question in an unspecified situation. The CPS and the police agreed definition of hate crime is used for the purposes of identifying and flagging only. The definition is: any criminal offence which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s actual or perceived disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity. When flagged as a hate crime, the police will be satisfied that an offence has been committed and will then investigate evidence in support of the appropriate charge, as well as the aggravated element of hostility. It would not be appropriate for me, as I have just said, to confirm whether this is an example which would constitute a hate crime. That would be an operational decision both of the police and the CPS based on the specific circumstances.
On the Austrian situation, the judgment does not raise any issues which require any further consideration by this Government at this time.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was going to tell us that, like Mr Farage, he now found UKIP so awful that he, too, was leaving its ranks. Section 29J of the Public Order Act 1986, which was added, I understand, by this House during the passage of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, states:
“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents”.
In the light of those references to “insult or abuse”, do the Government intend to reconsider the appropriateness of those two words in Section 29J in the current climate, which seem to conflict to some degree with the objective of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and its protection for individuals from hatred and the fear of violence and harassment?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, we need to be careful to balance the two issues. I know why the noble Lord picked “insult” and “abuse” because they sound quite strong words, but insult and abuse and hatred are quite different things. I take the noble Lord’s point: on the face of it, they seem quite strong words.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I was the police spokesperson after the 7 July bombings in 2005 in London when 52 innocent people lost their lives. I was asked in a press conference whether I felt that it was the result of Islamic terrorism. I said that I thought that the phrase “Islamic terrorism” was a contradiction in terms. I went on to say that I believe that the UK is a much better, more law-abiding country because we have a strong Muslim community. I believe that now as much as I did then. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do agree with the noble Lord that the conflation of Islamism and Islamic is widespread. Not only should we understand where the two terms come from—Islamism, of course, comes from the collapse of the Ottoman empire—but that Islam itself is a peaceful religion and Muslims in this country contribute to the variety and diversity of our country.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that all faiths should be treated equally, and does she deplore the present practice of resources going to those who shout the loudest? There are no comparative statistics on hate crime for different faiths.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with the noble Lord that all religions should be treated equally. The premise of some of our hate crime legislation absolutely underpins that equality in society. No one should feel that hate should be meted out on them because of their religion, the colour of their skin, their sexual orientation or their disability.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that there is now far too much hatred in the world, affecting all ages, such as the tragic incident that occurred recently with the Syrian refugee? The total pervasiveness of social media is an opportunity to spread hate in different directions. Will she comment on the approach that could be taken to tackle that particular challenge that we now have?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend raises an important question about the proliferation of hate crime online; of course, what is a crime offline should also be a crime online. We will be taking our online harms White Paper through Parliament shortly. He is absolutely right to point out the case of that poor Syrian boy, but I should also like to point out that sometimes out of such awful situations comes great kindness. I understand that the British public have raised a lot of funds for that family to support them through the terrible time that they have had.
Carbon Emission Reduction Targets
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage oil and gas companies to link executive pay to carbon emission reduction targets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the Government welcome the announcement by Shell that executive pay will be linked to carbon reduction targets. While executive pay is a matter for the company’s shareholders, the Government have given shareholders new powers to hold companies to account on pay, including a binding vote on the directors’ remuneration policy.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer and I agree that the announcement this week by Royal Dutch Shell is to be welcomed, though it has come after years of investor pressure, not least from the Church Commissioners and the Church of England Pensions Board. Her Majesty’s Government have stated their support for the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. Can the Minister tell us what practical things Her Majesty’s Government are doing to encourage that, and in particular what assessment they have made of whether it should become compulsory?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we believe that it is important that executive pay should be a matter for the companies involved. That is why we leave it to them and why we have given powers to shareholders in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 to insist, as I said in my original Answer, that they have a binding vote on directors’ remuneration policy. In striving to meet carbon reduction targets, the Government will continue to encourage others to do the same, but that must be a matter for the companies.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this is not just about the principle of executive pay, but that we should all be committed to reducing carbon emissions? How does my noble friend square the fact that if fracking continues in the United Kingdom, we will increase our greenhouse gas emissions and therefore create more carbon emissions?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend. I believe that there is a very strong case for encouraging shale gas extraction not only in terms of energy security but also in terms of reducing our carbon emissions. It will lead to less use of other, more harmful sources of energy. It can play a role in both reducing carbon and increasing our energy security.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I was delighted to learn that the Government have carbon targets for their whole estate under their Greening Government Commitments. Does the Minister agree that, given his welcome for this scheme, Secretaries of State should have their pay varied according to their performance against those greening commitments?
Lord Henley
I do not have absolutely at my fingertips how well each department across the government estate is doing in terms of the Greening Government Commitments, but I can assure the noble Lord that this has been going on through Governments for many years; I remember it happening as long ago as in the 1990s. The Government are moving in that direction. Whether the pay of Secretaries of State should be involved in this is a matter beyond my pay grade.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is it possible that the Church of England might link the stipends of vicars and bishops to making the heating systems in their churches more efficient and greener?
Lord Henley
I am sure that the Benches represented by the right reverend Prelates, which are particularly well occupied today, will have noted what my noble friend has had to say.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, research by NASA and at Peking University in Beijing, among others, has shown conclusively that there is now roughly 14% more green vegetation on the planet than there was 33 years ago and that 70% of that is the result of extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Should oil and gas executives be rewarded for increasing the growth rates of forests?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am going to leave the pay of oil and gas executives to their own shareholders, and what my noble friend has said is something that they can take into account. We will continue to try to meet our own carbon reduction targets and also note the comments of my noble friends. We are making enormous progress and are on track to meet our second carbon reduction target. We are the fastest decarbonating country in the G20. Moreover, as I said earlier, we will look at our energy security and other matters.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, given that the long-term gain must be to try to get to net zero emissions—by approximately 2050—there is a lot to play for in this area. I think that we should all congratulate the Church Commissioners and the Church of England on making sure, through their pressure, that at least one company recognises that it has a responsibility, even if it is a rather novel way of doing it. Indeed, if the Minister has any worries about what other schemes we might have for capping executive pay, I have many of them up my sleeve which I could share with him. However, surely the main point here is that this has to be an all-round effort. What are the Government going to do about affecting investors whose short-term decisions often ruin the plans that they might have?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I believe that the Government have done the right thing in giving the power to the shareholders, who are the investors. They now have the power to look at their executive pay.
Scottish Election (Date) (2020) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 5th December 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Scottish Election (Date) (2020) Bill [HL] 2017-19 View all Scottish Election (Date) (2020) Bill [HL] 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a rollercoaster of a week, not just from a political point of view but from a legal point of view. I say at the outset that I have some sympathy for the position of the Attorney-General. No one who has not done that job will appreciate how difficult it can be. He expressed himself robustly and with great confidence in another place; it was a stupendous performance, for those who had the privilege of watching it.
However, the point that I want to dwell on in my few comments is that, ultimately, what the Attorney-General gave was not a legal opinion. The key issue with which we—and, I suggest, all noble Lords—are concerned is: what is the prospect that, if we go into this deal, we will be able to exit from the backstop with a degree of confidence and reliability? He gave an assessment born of confidence and a strong conviction in the Government’s political stance. He is, of course, fully entitled to that view—but at the end of the day it was a political view, not a legal view.
Now, since the disclosure this morning of the Attorney-General’s advice to Cabinet on what the legal position actually is, in his opinion, we have a much clearer view. That is what I want to turn to first. The document is revealing. The key point I wanted to make, even before I saw it, was that in legal terms, entering into this deal would potentially tie us indefinitely into the backstop arrangements. There is no legal route to exit from the backstop: only a political agreement between the EU and the UK would do that.
That view is now endorsed emphatically in the Attorney-General’s advice to Cabinet, and I commend that document to the House. He says, in paragraph 30, that,
“the current drafting of the Protocol, including Article 19”—
which is now Article 20—
“does not provide for a mechanism that is likely to enable the UK lawfully to exit the UK wide customs union without a subsequent agreement”.
Noble Lords will note that he goes on to say:
“This remains the case even if parties are still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believe that talks have clearly broken down and there is no prospect of a future relationship agreement”.
In his Statement to the other place, the Attorney-General also said:
“If the protocol were to come into force, it would continue to apply in international law unless and until it was superseded by the intended subsequent agreement”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/18; col. 547.]
I agree with that. There is no unilateral right to terminate this arrangement.
I want to make three points about the advice that your Lordships and the other place have now seen. First, it is now clear that certain of the makeweight legal arguments put forward to suggest another conclusion are without substance. That is what I believed and intended to put before the House, but the Attorney-General’s opinion makes it abundantly clear.
In particular, first, it had been suggested that reliance could be placed on the statements that the protocol is intended to be “temporary”. It is now clear that, as I believe, that is misplaced. As the Attorney-General says in paragraph 16 of his advice to Cabinet:
“It is difficult to conclude otherwise than that the Protocol is intended to subsist even when negotiations have clearly broken down”.
He goes on to say that,
“despite statements in the Protocol that it is not intended to be permanent, and the clear intention of the parties that it should be replaced by alternative, permanent arrangements in international law, the Protocol would endure indefinitely until a superseding agreement took its place, in whole or in part, as set out therein”.
I emphasise the words “would endure indefinitely”, because they are critical to this analysis—and they are right. The protocol makes clear—for example, in Article 1.4, and in the preamble—that only a subsequent agreement will bring it to an end.
Secondly, as the Attorney-General said, the review mechanism in Article 19, now Article 20, adds nothing. It states that by mutual consent—that is, agreement of the EU and the United Kingdom—the protocol could be brought to an end, but that is what international law already provides. The suggestion has been made, particularly in this House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that the arbitration and dispute resolution provisions would kick in to create a different situation. Noble Lords may recall that I was sceptical about that and challenged that proposition when it was raised in this House.
The House can now see that the view of the Attorney-General is the same as mine. I refer in particular to paragraphs 27 to 29 of his advice to the Cabinet. He makes the point, with which I respectfully agree, that,
“it is extremely difficult to see how a five member arbitral panel made up of lawyers who are independent of the parties would be prepared to make a judgment as political as whether the Protocol is no longer necessary, in the absence of the consent of the parties”.
In paragraph 28, he says that there is no other mechanism for adjudicating a dispute over the absence of an agreement and confirms that there are no “remedies” for an absence of agreement other than those specified “expressly” in the withdrawal agreement, which,
“does not include termination of all or part of the Withdrawal Agreement”.
Noble Lords may recall that, in answer to me, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, confirmed that the protocol does not contain a power in the arbitral panel to substitute an agreement that the parties have not themselves made.
Thirdly, the noble and learned Lord placed much emphasis on the duty to use best endeavours, while the Attorney-General describes the duties to act in good faith and to use best endeavours as “forceful and precise”, acknowledging that,
“that could not require the parties to a negotiation to set aside their fundamental interest”.
In other words, the parties could not be proven to have breached those obligations,
“in the absence of clear and convincing evidence of a proper motive and wilful intransigence”.
I would add that Article 184 makes it clear that, in any event, the agreement is subject to the “respective legal orders” of both parties. Reliance has been placed on a number of authorities in the commentary provided by the Attorney-General, which do not contradict what I just said.
Before I conclude on what that all means, I invite noble Lords to note that the advice also seems to confirm that there will be different regulatory regimes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which will require customs and regulatory checks and controls. I invite attention to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Attorney-General’s advice.
Where does this all lead? I respect the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General—I have had the pleasure of appearing with him in court—but that does not mean that legal arguments we might be prepared to advance are a sound basis on which we should put the future of our country. If there is an agreement between the EU and this country, we will exit but, as noble Lords know, that would require unanimity. That means that any state, whether it is France because of fishing rights or Spain because of Gibraltar, could prevent such an agreement coming into effect.
One may be prepared to put reliance aside in the political hope that this will all be unnecessary. On an earlier occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to the dangers of going on a “gangplank into thin air”. If any Members of the House or another place think that there is a legal gangplank made of solid legal planks to get us there, I respectfully advise them that that is not the case. The gangplank of legal planks is simply a hologram. I am not prepared to trust my or my country’s weight to it and I advise noble Lords not to do so either.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Obviously, his distinguished record as a former Attorney-General is particularly relevant to the present situation, and enables him to speak with authority. Probably more than anybody in the country, he has had first-hand experience of the extraordinary pressures placed on Law Officers of the Crown in the performance of their duties at significant points in our nation’s history.
In his remarks, the noble and learned Lord expressed a degree of certainty that I am not sure my noble and learned friend Lord Keen would agree with. I am not going to get into a lawyers’ discussion, because I do not want the House to think that I have certainty on these issues. I am assailed by doubts on this matter on every side, regarding not just the legal issue but the transaction itself. Probably the only certainty that I had when we set out on the Brexit road was the belief that, at the end of the negotiations and when the transaction was revealed, both sides would say that it was a bad and inadequate deal. A lifetime in the City has taught me that at the end of fiercely fought negotiations, the pre-eminent emotion among participants is that of disappointment that negotiations could and should have been handled better. In the City, it is known as buyer’s remorse or seller’s remorse. The critical question is not “Is this a good deal?”, but “Is this a good-enough deal?” I now turn to that judgment.
First, the ending of free movement of labour is clearly an important and advantageous outcome. The House may be aware of my interest in the demographic projections of 7 million to 9 million more people in the UK 20 years from now, requiring us to build three cities the size of Manchester. I fear that that will impose strains on our society, both economic and societal, and may undermine our social cohesion. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his remarks this morning, urged us to look to the long term. This issue is nothing if not long-term. It is perfectly true that the Government have not done much to close down or control arrivals from outside the EU, over which they already have complete control. However, a key result of this negotiation is that we now have a tap which can regulate the flow of labour into this country from the EU, and provided we have the political will, we can turn it.
The second issue is the rolling-back, not immediate elimination, of the role of the European Court of Justice. This country, having been a member of the EU for 40 years, can reasonably be expected to have to allow a role for the ECJ in UK-EU dealings, but it is equally not unrealistic to expect them to become attenuated over time. Ab initio, our Supreme Court will have an enlarged area of competence over which it can deploy British common law principles.
My third point relates to the Irish border and the backstop, which the noble and learned Lord focused on. The Hodgsons come from County Galway in the Republic. I can recall, in the bad old days, cousins who were serving in the British Army being told by the Gardai that it was best if they did not come home on leave. I need no lessons on the significance or sensitivity of the Irish border question. In part, the Irish border question has assumed some greater short-term significance because of Irish domestic political issues—the struggle for control of Fine Gael between the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and his Foreign Minister Simon Coveney.
However, leaving that aside, it is a question of trust—a commodity which, at least at present, is in short supply. As I understand it, less than 10% of Anglo-Irish trade goes by the land border. Over 90% going by sea will be handled no differently in the future under the new arrangement from trade with France or Holland. For this relatively small volume of land trade, a combination of modern technology and trusted trader status could and should provide an answer. I say “could” because it requires an element of good will. Quite understandably, some of us fear that the UK will be stuck in a halfway house with the EU’s hand on our windpipe. However, there are not inconsiderable reasons as to why the EU should try to reach an accommodation on this issue, as my noble friend the Leader of the House mentioned in her opening remarks. After March 2019, the UK will no longer be a member of the EU, so it will not contribute to the EU budget, but it will still enjoy frictionless trade inside the customs union. Might this situation, without too much exaggeration, be described as having your cake and eating it too?
This question of trust underlies the whole next stage of our disentanglement. The EU is faced with a number of existential threats: to the euro and to itself. What does this foretell about the next stage? Clearly, we cannot be seen to be short-term winners, but while for institutional reasons of self-preservation the Commission may continue to take a hard line, once the initial withdrawal agreement is out of the way the emphasis of member states may shift. I notice in my contacts with Europe in businesses increasing use of phrases such as, “We should not be vindictive”. Those comments, of course, flow from self-interest. First, they want to continue to sell to us; secondly, they recognise what the UK could bring to Europe in security, defence and the fight against organised crime.
Is this deal good enough? Taken together, the ending of free movement of labour, the re-establishment of our Supreme Court at the apex of our judicial system and the emerging signs of self-interest among the remaining EU states lead me to believe that it is. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, rightly reminded us that, in the end, this is a matter for the House of Commons. So let me say to your Lordships’ House that, if I were a Member of the other place, I would vote for this transaction.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, it was challenging to hear the most reverend Primate’s intervention this morning. So what are the strategic issues facing the UK, Europe and the world? Overridingly, they are those of the environment and climate change: not only the need for effective control of pollution but the need to face up to the vast movement of people which will be an inevitable consequence of what is happening.
We are constantly preoccupied here in the UK with immigration, but that is part of the wider challenge of migration in the world as a whole. As we debate here today, let us remember that there are in the real world more than 20 million refugees and 39 million displaced people. How will we have any kind of stable future unless we have effective strategic policies to meet that reality? What about international terrorism? There is no way in which we can solve that and the issues that stem from it and lie behind it on an insular basis. There has to be co-operation. I had the privilege of serving on the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee when it was taking this issue very seriously. I hardly heard a front-line practitioner working in this area who did not say that to be leaving the European Union would make the work more difficult and less effective.
There are also the issues of international crime and corruption, which similarly require collective action. Among the economic issues are non-renewables and human resources. Nearer home, in our immediate situation, we have heard a good deal in the debate so far about Ireland, where it is crucial that preserving the stability which has been won through Good Friday agreement is high in our priorities.
There are other issues which are global. We need a well-educated population, certainly in our own country but across the world, to meet these challenges. Education that is relevant in our present context requires an international dimension. That means movement of people. If we are to fulfil the creative potential of our society, freedom of movement is crucial, because we want informed and creative activity, with people from different backgrounds working closely together.
What is the European story against all this? On the European Coal and Steel Community and the story of the evolution of the European institutions since, there is a tendency in this country, and certainly in this House, to talk about the European story simply in economic terms and say, “We didn’t want to get involved in all this political stuff; we thought it was an economic arrangement”. That is simply naive. The whole European story has been political from the start. Of course, the European Economic Community and the European Coal and Steel Community were economically important, but they were a means for moving towards a stable, collaborative, strong Europe.
Under successive Administrations, we have never imaginatively embraced this. I was Minister for Europe in the early years of our confirmed membership. I can remember recognising that we had an imaginative, visionary battle to be won. We have been dominated by what is in it for us.
I find that, against this background, a general election is crucial. I am sad to find myself differing strongly from the Liberals on this point, because I so often find myself almost inspired by what they have to say on the Europe issue. This is not a separate issue. It is intimately connected to all the political issues that face us. We have to evaluate the relevance and effectiveness of the institutions against how far they help or hinder our response to all the issues I have been listing.
We have got to be very careful here in Parliament. The young, the professionals, the business community, the trade unions, much of the leadership in the services—as real players in the real world, they understand how much we are dependent upon the world and how much, therefore, our involvement with Europe is crucial to us playing our full part in serving the purposes of our own people and the people of other nations in facing up to what confronts us.
I think these are dangerous times. I think that political leadership has been badly lagging behind and that so many of the key people in our society have run far ahead in their imagination and thinking of where the political community here in Britain finds itself. Without vision, we are lost. That means being sure that what is before us faces up to the magnitude of the challenge. I do not believe that what is before us begins to suggest that these huge, overarching issues are at the centre of government thinking. We need a general election desperately. If we cannot have that, with all its flaws and inadequacies there must be renewed authority and that means another referendum.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, this decision could not be more important for the UK and our children’s future. The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, set this decision in its massive historical context when the referendum went the way that it did. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, who is not in his place, identified remainers’ concerns as largely economic, while leavers were concerned about sovereignty. Those who marched immediately after the referendum, or more recently for the people’s vote, would challenge that.
Young people passionately feel European, as, clearly, do others: a non-British architecture student was marching with me and she noted, with delighted astonishment, the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside. Especially for young people, being European is part of who they are—part of their many-layered identities. As my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, made clear, it is part of how we share sovereignty to greatest effect—for example, in tackling climate change which, as David Attenborough has pointed out yet again, threatens the future of all of us. So we must remember, as the most reverend Primate pointed out, the child born yesterday and remember, too, the children who marched recently with signs saying “Made in EU”—unlike most of us.
I shall focus on the potential impact of Brexit and this deal on foreign affairs at a time of enormous global challenge. Whether we look at soft power for keeping values at the heart of our foreign policy or at our ability to achieve much more through the EU, Brexit undermines Britain’s place in the world. We apparently seek global reach and influence, but global Britain has been dubbed “a slogan in pursuit of a policy”. Many of our partners believe that Britain has retreated into what Edward Luce of the Financial Times has called “inglorious isolation”.
The Governor of the Bank of England’s reports make very clear the economic damage of leaving our biggest trading market, so how would we resource a newly global Britain? We have been able to punch above our weight as a member of the EU. We have very significant soft power assets, including higher education, science and the creative industries. Brexit threatens them all. We are on the UN Security Council, NATO, the G7 and in the EU. That array helps to maximise our influence.
Britain has long claimed to be the Euro-Atlantic bridge. With the threat of Brexit, that is already going. The EU has helped the UK to deliver many of our foreign policy objectives, acting as a force multiplier. Ironically, of course, the UK has held EU external action, and the Union’s common foreign and security policy, at arm’s length. But it was our British colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, who was the EU’s first ever High Representative.
We have had a disproportionate effect in helping to shape the EU’s global role from within, including: the Iran nuclear deal; fielding stabilisation and other missions to Georgia, the Palestinian Territories, Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia and elsewhere; agreeing sanctions on Syria, Russia, Zimbabwe and in relation to Ukraine, Yemen and elsewhere; and helping to tackle the conflict so recently seen on the European continent, not only in Northern Ireland but in the Balkans. Even stabilising the position of Gibraltar was assisted by the UK and Spain both being EU members.
We have helped the world’s poorest people and those in crisis. We have promoted global stability as the world’s largest development and humanitarian aid donor. We have worked together with EU allies across the globe, including in the WTO, the OECD and the UN Human Rights Council. And of course there were the amazing efforts that our Ministers put in to ensuring that the EU was ambitious and effective in helping to deliver the Paris climate change treaty in 2015.
Our EU membership has given us so much more clout than we would have alone. A small taster of what might come to be was when we failed for the first time to secure a British judge on the International Court of Justice, or a Brit to head the WHO. These failures are widely seen as an indicator of Britain’s reduced status and diminished European support.
So what are the Government seeking to do? We want a “deep and special partnership” between the UK and the EU. We issued a joint position with France and Germany on Saudi Arabia and Jamal Khashoggi. We did not want to go it alone. If we do go it alone, the FCO will need further resourcing: its core budget is already dwarfed by that of the French diplomatic service. However, our economy will not be as strong as it might have been.
In May, the Government spoke about a “deep and special partnership”. In the political declaration, the proposal is for “close and lasting” co-operation on foreign policy, with co-ordination on a case-by-case basis. It is full of “possibles”: we might support each other’s position; we might be invited to meetings, “on an exceptional basis”. There may be dialogue at various levels. I am not going to play with anyone’s name, but “may” does not mean “must”.
We know that leaving the EU will damage us economically and affect how we define ourselves. We can see that leaving the EU reduces our clout globally, which is, of course, why the Government have been arguing for a close and special relationship—it is a pity that we did not do this in earlier years. But nothing is guaranteed; we are examining a withdrawal deal that is noted as inadequate on all sides. Nothing has been set in place for what happens after that, only aspirations with no legal force. We are looking at the gangplank to nowhere, so lucidly described by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, months ago.
This is a turning point in our history. A referendum set this train of events in motion; we should therefore return to the people. Do they accept this deal, or do they vote to remain, now that we can all see what the real choices are?
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, as a career scientist I ask myself whether the Prime Minister’s deal is good or bad for UK science. Last Friday, the Science Minister, Sam Gyimah, gave his verdict when he resigned, saying that the deal would mean that the UK’s interests,
“will be repeatedly and permanently hammered by the EU 27 for many years to come”.
He recognised the gap between the warm and encouraging words of the political declaration and the harsh reality of negotiation over the years ahead.
The president of the Royal Society, commenting on the deal, put it this way:
“This is a step in the right direction but it will be a long hard road to reach a long-term agreement”.
The report that came out today from the European Union Select Committee also highlights in paragraph 199 that nothing is said in the deal about how we will reach future agreements on science and technology with the other member states.
The trigger event for the resignation of Sam Gyimah, as noble Lords will be aware, was the European Union 27 rejecting the UK’s bid to remain in Galileo. This is the European Union’s satellite navigation system that will serve as an alternative to the GPS system from the United States that we all use every day on our smartphones. Galileo, importantly, will give European Union member states access to high-resolution data that is crucially important in military security. We are now left out in the cold. Having spent £1.24 billion on Galileo, we are going to start all over again to build our own stand-alone system. This is lunacy.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Does the noble Lord not agree that this was a completely disgraceful and vindictive act, based on their claim that they cannot share sensitive intelligence with our nation, when on a daily basis we are giving sensitive intelligence to Europe and saving lives in Europe? Is this not a quite extraordinary decision?
Lord Krebs
I agree that it is an extraordinary decision but, as I am saying, it reflects the difficulty of the future negotiations. This outcome undermines the Prime Minister’s hope that the UK,
“would like the option to fully associate ourselves with the excellence-based European science and innovation programmes—including the successor to Horizon 2020 and Euratom”.
Galileo is only one example of how our science and technology could suffer in future. In a recent survey of 1,000 staff at the Francis Crick Institute, Europe’s largest biomedical research institute, scientists were overwhelmingly negative about the consequences of Brexit for UK science. On 23 October, 29 Nobel prize winners and six Fields medallists—the maths equivalent of a Nobel—wrote to the Prime Minister expressing their deep concerns. The deal simply does not do enough to reassure the scientific community.
In my own university, Oxford, roughly 12% of research funding comes from the EU, and there is no guarantee that in future we will be able to participate in the schemes that follow on from Horizon 2020. In the European Research Council funding programme, which is based on scientific excellence, the UK is far and away the most successful country in the EU, and the top three institutions in the EU for receiving funds under this scheme are Cambridge, Oxford and UCL.
Lord Vinson (Con)
My Lords, is it not in fact true that our annual contribution to the EU is merely recycled and comes back to our science and other bodies, so moneys should still be available?
Lord Krebs
I thank the noble Lord for that because it anticipates my next paragraph. The UK gets out more than 1.5 times as much as we pay in, so our return on investment is stupendous. But it is not just about money; it is the exchange of people and ideas that will be lost if we cannot remain in these European programmes.
Noble Lords might ask: why does the science base in this country matter? The reason is that it is the basis of our future prosperity. As the Prime Minister herself put it in introducing the industrial strategy:
“That is what our modern Industrial Strategy is all about. Investing in science and research to keep us at the forefront of new technologies and the benefits they bring”.
So, whether you are thinking of new medical treatments, novel sources of energy, transport or tackling climate change, all of that will depend in future on our investment in science and on the international nature of our science.
I know that the Minister will not be able to provide us with any reassurance about the future because, as other noble Lords have said, the future is quite uncertain—but perhaps he could tell us what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the deal that is on the table on the future prospects for UK science. Some have said, “Why worry about the EU, because, after all, we can collaborate with other countries?”—but it is not either/or. In my own scientific career I have done research in German, French and Dutch laboratories as well as in the United States and Canada, so it is not as if we are constrained from international collaboration outside the European Union by our membership of EU research programmes.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what evidence he has to support the notion that this deal will be good for UK science. Perhaps he could also tell us what the go-it-alone replacement for Galileo will cost and how those costs compare with working within the European Union. As things stand, I do not see enough in the deal on the table that will support the future of UK science and technology for me to think that it is a satisfactory deal—which is why I will support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I am not a natural rebel. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that I have rebelled against my party in the 35 years during which I have had the privilege of serving in Parliament, and all those were matters of hugely less importance than the issues before your Lordships today, so I make this speech with a heavy heart.
I was one of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU, and I did so because I wanted my country and its Parliament to take back control over our nation’s future and its destiny. I am afraid that the agreement before your Lordships’ House today does the opposite of that.
As a member of the European Union, we have the right, under Article 50, to leave. It is an untrammelled right—we can exercise it, and are exercising it, unilaterally, without having to ask anyone’s permission to do so. Under the backstop—it constrains our freedom of action in a large number of areas, over which we would have no control—we would be unable to leave without the permission of the European Union or perhaps, just possibly, the panel of arbitrators. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has just executed an extremely effective job of demolishing the role of the panel of arbitrators, but let us assume for the purpose of the argument that it has a more expanded role. Clearly, the Government thought that its role was of great significance, otherwise they would not have gone to the lengths of inserting so many provisions relating to the panel of arbitrators into the agreement.
I have never attained the pinnacles of judicial and legal expertise possessed by those Members of your Lordships’ House who are entitled to be called “learned”. However, I did practise at the Bar for 21 years, and it taught me one thing: judges and arbitrators can get things wrong. It is because judges get things wrong that we have a Court of Appeal, and it is because the Court of Appeal gets things wrong that we have a Supreme Court. Yet the wording of Article 180.2 of the agreement is stark. It says that:
“Any ruling of the arbitration panel shall be binding”.
Not only is there no provision for appeal, but the article actually prohibits the publication of any dissenting opinion.
The agreement’s supporters say that we will never get into the backstop. They may be right, but they may not be. A large number of the 585 pages of the withdrawal agreement are devoted to the backstop. It is reasonable, to put it mildly, that all that midnight oil would not have been devoted to them if both sides thought this was an entirely academic exercise. The agreement’s supporters would say that we need not worry about the backstop, because it is not in the interests of the European Union to keep us there. Indeed, we heard that argument from my noble friend Lord Hodgson a few moments ago. I ask this simple question: if it is not in the interests of the European Union to keep us there, why will they not agree to a time-limited backstop? Nothing could be easier if it is not in their interests to keep us in the backstop.
I am afraid the evidence is mounting that there are European leaders only too keen to use this as leverage to pressure us. The Prime Minister of Spain has hinted he may do it on Gibraltar. The President of France has said he wants to use it to get rights over fishing. When this was put to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in another place, he said that the President of France was wrong. He said it in French for good measure. I am a great admirer of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and not only because of his command of the French language, but should there be a dispute it will not be him who decides whether the President of France is wrong. It will not be our Prime Minister, our Government or our Parliament; it will be the European Union or, just possibly, a panel of arbitrators. One of the ironies of the referendum debate is that those of us who voted to leave are constantly being told what we meant or did not mean by those who voted to remain. I can say one thing without any fear of contradiction: the 17.4 million people who voted in 2016 to leave the European Union did not do so to place their future, or the future of our country, in the hands of a panel of arbitrators.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, described the agreement on Monday as a “humiliation”. In the debate in your Lordships’ House two weeks ago, my noble friend Lord Lamont quoted Carl Baudenbacher, the former president of the EFTA Court, who said:
“It is absolutely unbelievable that a country like the UK, which was the first country to accept independent courts, would subject itself to this”.
I cannot think of any other country—except, perhaps, in the immediate aftermath of a defeat in war, or in the face of an imminent defeat of that kind—which has been prepared to give away so much control over such a wide area of its future affairs to a panel of arbitrators.
Your Lordships may perfectly reasonably ask: what is the alternative? This is what should be done: the Government should recognise that this deal is dead. I was encouraged to be told on Monday by my noble friend the Leader of the House that conversations are taking place between the UK and the European Union on preparations for Brexit without a formal withdrawal agreement. Those conversations should be intensified and expanded. They should encompass a series of ad hoc, temporary arrangements to minimise and if possible eliminate any disruption which might otherwise take place on 30 March. I would go further and declare that, for a period of 12 months from 30 March next year, the United Kingdom will not place any tariffs, tariff barriers or obstacles against the importation of goods and services into the United Kingdom from the European Union. I hope that it would reciprocate, but we should do it even if it does not. Finally, I would use those 12 months to negotiate a free-trade, Canada-plus agreement with the European Union along the lines offered by President Tusk earlier this year.
Obviously, I cannot vote for either the second Motion or the amendment that will be put before your Lordships later, because they would conflict with that objective. We should never have allowed ourselves to get into these difficulties. There is a way through, but it is not the agreement before your Lordships today.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, the truth is that just about everything that could be said on this subject has been said, time and again. There is no doubt either that, in truth, today’s debate will not change many minds; if it changes five minds, it will be miraculous. If we are being absolutely honest with ourselves, the debate that really matters is happening at the other end of the building. So I should sit down, and the temptation to do so is increased by the fact that, with the noble Lord, Lord Howard, going ahead of me, and the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, coming behind me, I feel like the cavalryman at the Battle of Balaclava suddenly realising that he is charging the guns—only this time it is cannon in front and cannon behind, instead of just to the left and the right, where my friends are.
My reason for speaking is just to address a slightly different point from that which has taken up most of your Lordships’ time. The processes we have gone through have caused huge public disillusionment with our processes. Whichever side of the argument you are on, that should be recognised as an issue of the utmost seriousness. If I had three hours, I could give your Lordships a complete list of all the occasions when this public disillusionment was aggravated, so I will pick three to show that I am not taking sides.
Mr Cameron went to Europe to secure some fresh arrangements. Anybody could read that it was utterly pointless—he got nothing. But when he came back, he suggested to the public that something significant had been achieved when, in truth, nothing had been achieved. He forgot that you cannot fool all the people all the time. I think that helped turn the result of the referendum. It encouraged people to think, “If that’s what we’re really being asked to believe has been achieved, maybe we should vote leave”. What about the referendum campaign? Both sides spoke in fables. We were engulfed in those twin imposters, were we not? There was the triumph of the wilder Brexiteers and desolation and defeat of the shattered remainers. Then there were all of the rest of us somewhere in the middle. I am sorry to say this—former judges should not make political points—but at this moment, as I stand here, I still find the position of the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition on all these issues enigmatic.
We can blame Mrs May, the Prime Minister, for the inadequacy of the deal that she has negotiated, and I would not resist criticism of the way in which we have handled the negotiations. But there is, is there not—please, can we pause and remember it—a further thought? If the terms of the withdrawal agreement brought back to London by Mrs May should have been better than they are, or do not satisfy what we think they should have been, there was another party to these negotiations. These were the best terms the EU was prepared to give her. I am not being critical of the EU. It did not want us to leave; it does not want anybody to leave; it wants people to be discouraged from leaving. It had the best cards and played them. This is not a criticism of the EU, but we have to remember that whoever thinks they could have done better in these negotiations must demonstrate quite how that would have been achieved and quite what would have been achieved. That is my anxiety about the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—no doubt she will tell us, or it will be said to us.
Mrs May voted personally to remain, but it was not open to her or her Government to renege on the results of the referendum. The main foundation of our constitution is the sovereignty of Parliament. I believe referenda have emerged as a totally unwelcome and inappropriate way of dealing with issues raised in our constitution. I would love to argue the constitutional point; I would win. But, politically, Mrs May had no choice. I remind this House that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 passed the Commons at Second Reading by no fewer than 544 votes to 53. The Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats all voted in favour. There were a few dissentients, such as my old friend Kenneth Clarke, but the only significant party to vote against the referendum was the SNP.
I am very assiduous; I looked at Hansard to see which of these 544 MPs said, “But I want you to know that I still reserve the constitutional right of Parliament to overrule the result of the referendum”. I do not say there were none, but they were not a great number. Beyond that, we then come to a general election in which both major parties commit themselves unequivocally to proceeding with the referendum result. Between them, they won the overwhelming majority of the seats. Whichever party had come into power, no Government could have dared to insult the electorate by ignoring both the extraordinary parliamentary majority that voted in favour of the referendum, and the result of the election. The referendum had to be honoured and, as things stand, it is still the only lawfully binding arrangement in town: the referendum still binds us.
It is possible that Parliament may change it. I must move on, but how will we address the public disillusionment with our processes, partly caused by the chaotic negotiations, the constant meetings, the whispers and the commentators—everybody churning away, saying it is all chaotic? I suggest something utterly quixotic, something nobody who lived in the real world would ever think of: might it not be a sensible idea, although hopeless, for us to invite the other place to allow a free vote? We know that all parties are split through and through in all sorts of directions. Why should every Member of Parliament voting on this crucial issue—the most important of my lifetime—not be allowed a free vote? The public would at least then know what individual Members of Parliament thought, untrammelled by party pressure, and that they had cast their votes accordingly—exercising the wonderful idea of their own judgment and discretion and not doing what their party told them to do. It may be a quixotic idea but I think that is how, in 1971, we went into the EU. Maybe we should return to the same process.
Lord Heseltine (Con)
My Lords, this debate has repeated arguments that most of us have used over many years but I do not intend to go back over any arguments that I have expressed. They remain in my mind as convincing as they have been throughout my political life.
I have to say that, of the many speeches and moments of memory in this debate, my noble friend Lord Howard proclaiming that he is not a rebel will long live in my memory. He provided the explanation that he had rebelled against his party on only three occasions. If I had risen in my place to say that I am not a rebel the place would have dissolved into hysterical laughter, but I have rebelled against my party on only three occasions.
The first was when they wanted to resist the race relations legislation of the former Prime Minister, Mr Callaghan. I revolted and the Tory party changed its mind. I revolted against the poll tax. I brought the poll tax to an end. The poll tax went and the Tory party won a subsequent general election. It is perfectly true that I defied a three-line Whip in this House over the issue of a meaningful vote. I was hauled out of my dinner with my wife in Wiltons in Jermyn Street for the poor old Chief Whip to axe me from the job that I was doing in government at the time. I say to my noble friend Lord Howard: “Be careful where you go tonight”.
I wish to come very briefly to three points. The first of them was referred to very eloquently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I agree with him that the Attorney-General put up a bravura performance in another place yesterday. He made it clear that he felt that he had delivered the facts and the truth and a proper reflection of his private advice to government. I am sympathetic to the argument that Governments should not be expected to publish all their private advice. It could be seriously damaging if information in it is of help to people who do not share the national interest of this country.
I faced exactly this dilemma when I had to deal with the censure Motion from the then Opposition over the sinking of the “Belgrano”. One of the prime arguments was that the House of Commons wanted to see the papers. They were secure, classified papers and not publishable. I dealt with the issue by inviting the Select Committee for Defence to come to my office in the Ministry of Defence to read the papers. There were no problems, no questions and no leaks and the issue was successfully resolved.
I believe that the Government, in losing on three amendments over the course of yesterday, could easily have circumnavigated at least that one by saying to a committee of privy counsellors from all sides of the House, “Come and look at the advice and affirm to the House of Commons that what the Attorney-General has said to the House in public actually reflects in whole the contents of the private advice”. Although I hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, says, the truth is that it has proved to be a damp squib. The document itself has not supported any of the hysterical abuse that would have been justified if, in fact, it had differed significantly on the two occasions.
Secondly, I want to go back to a point made most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. In 1973 I was faced by a classic ministerial submission: “Minister of State, would you give us £6 million in order to catch up with the cheating French and Germans on their space programmes?” It was phrased more eloquently than that but the thrust of the argument was broadly along those lines. I said to the officials, “Well, of course, I’m dead keen on catching up with anybody who is cheating on the British national interest, but before we get carried away with this £6 million, would you be kind enough to just tell me how much Europe is spending on space, and will you then tell me what the United States is spending on space?” I shall never forget the figures. The European figure—for all of Europe at that time—was £200 million a year and the American figure was £1.2 billion, and I was being asked to provide £6 million to compete with the French and the Germans.
I played a formative role in creating the European Space Agency. British industry told me that it wanted satellite leadership. I got it satellite leadership, and that fast-forwards to the Galileo project. Here, we find that we are not to be trusted on defence matters that are secret to Europe. What secrecy is there in Europe that, in defence terms, does not affect us? However, that is the argument and it is the tip of the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was talking about.
What have we done in response? We have provided £90 million for a feasibility study on whether we can compete with the Galileo project. It will take 18 months, and at the end of that there will be a six-month consideration. So in two years’ time we will come to a view about the feasibility and the cost. The noble Lord asks whether the Minister will provide an answer about the cost but the Minister has no idea and it is likely that no one else does. However, let us assume that it is rather more than the £90 million cost of the feasibility study and let us put the figures in context.
The UK space programme at the moment costs £300 million. If you take the £90 million over 18 months, that is £60 million a year, so one-fifth of the cost of our programme is going into a feasibility study. Currently, £5 billion is spent on the European programme and £16 billion is spent on the American programme. The only moral of this story is that we cannot afford to act on our own, and that is why the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, speaks with such eloquence on the panic sweeping through research institutions, universities and academia in this country about this being the beginning of the unravelling of 40 years of recognising the indissoluble self-interest of this country in working with European people, most of whom have an identity of interest with us.
I have one last point to make, and perhaps I may apologise to many of my noble friends, because my point is really directed at my colleagues behind me. I have fought many battles with them against the elected mandates of Governments of which we disapproved. We did not deny the mandates; we simply set out to change them. I now listen to the arguments being deployed, many of them behind closed doors: “Vote for us, old boy”; “Don’t rock the boat, old boy”; “Do you want an election, old boy?”; or “Aren’t you frightened of who might be there, old boy?”. Well, I do not believe that there is going to be an election—I do not believe that the House of Commons will vote for one—but I do believe that the underlying issue behind Brexit was the frozen living standards in 2008 after the economic crash. I have heard from one noble friend after another and from the right reverend Prelate that we are voting in this legislation to make this country poorer.
Most of us in this House will not be affected—certainly I will not—but much has been made about the poorer people. While, on theology, I would not dream of locking horns with the right reverend Prelate, when it comes to the urban poor, I have some experience of the politics of urban poverty. There are no solutions that help the fortunes of the least privileged in the most stressful circumstances that are dissociable from public expenditure. If this House is going to vote solemnly and knowingly, as we have heard here today, for a slower economy, for lower tax revenues and for lower public expenditure, those who will suffer most are those least able to bear the strain.
When the election comes, it will have been a Tory who led the referendum campaign, it will have been a Tory Government who perpetuated the frozen living standards, and it will be a Tory Government who are blamed for what we are talking about today. I will have no part of it.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. Not for the first time, I agreed with much of what he said. However, I want to raise a very different point, which was alluded to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, just now.
There has been reference to the work that this House has done since 2016 on producing its reports in great detail on the various aspects of the unravelling of the relationship between this country and the European Union. As of yesterday, and with the debate going on in the House of Commons today, I can assure the House that none of that detailed work has the slightest relevance to the shenanigans in the House of Commons and the votes that are being taken this week. That underlines the fact that the politics operating here in Westminster are in a parallel universe to the expectations of the population outside.
The decisions of this House and its role in this whole period are limited. But let us be frank: the decisions that will be taken next week by the House of Commons are also very limited. To judge by the commentary in the press and the expectations of the public, they assume that the judgment on Mrs May’s deal is the key point at which we decide what our future is, and that all the questions that have arisen since Brexit will be answered one way or another by the acceptance, rejection or amendment of that deal. But that vote will do nothing of the kind. The only substantive element that we have before us is the withdrawal treaty, which is detailed and clear and has been the subject of drafting and redrafting over the past many months. But the political declaration that is determining our future was produced only about a month ago. It is very vague and grew from seven pages to 22 in about 10 days flat. Frankly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said just now, the way in which it is written is aspirational—there is hardly a “must” or a “will” in it; it all rests on the verbs “may” and “should”. This presents nothing to our people about how our future is going to develop.
The expectations among the electorate are that the vote will give such answers. But our exporters and importers will not know, on the basis of the decision on that document, on what basis they will be trading in future years, what the costs will be and what administrative and bureaucratic delays there will be in what was formerly frictionless trade. Our citizens will not know what rights they or their children will have in relation to movement within and between us and the European Union. Our workers will not know what rights they have over their jobs. As tourists, we will not know whether we will need to revert to international driving licences, change our insurance arrangements or, as tourists, rely on our health cards, as the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said earlier.
Our farmers will not know on what terms their goods will be accepted within Europe, or Europe’s will be imported here, and therefore what their fortunes will be in the future. Our fishermen will not know whether they are still governed by quotas or have free access. Our police forces will not know what replaces the European arrest warrant. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has just said, our scientists will not know on what basis collaboration and funding will operate for their work over the next few years. More immediately, our hauliers and travel operators by air, land and sea will not know the terms of their access once this decision has been taken. In other words, the issues that are most meaningful to our citizens and businesses will not be answered by this time next week.
The other dimension, which this dichotomy makes worse, is the fact that Brexit has already proved toxic within Britain and, to some extent, within Europe as a whole. It has divided our politicians and our major political parties. It has split families and it has divided north from south, city from countryside. It has revived secessionist tendencies within Scotland and threatens the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland—and dark forces of racism and worse have been released in and after the referendum. We are in dangerous political territory.
Meanwhile, this Parliament appears to the majority of our fellow citizens to be getting itself more and more convoluted and introverted in internal party and interparty matters. The result is growing frustration amongst Brexiteers and remainers alike that we should be getting on with it. As such, we are also seeing a move to support a no-deal exit. That is very dangerous territory indeed. The paradox, regrettably, is that actually we need more time to get this right. We need more time to get to a real deal that will substantially answer those questions and will be the basis for us going forward with our European partners.
To get a real deal that answers those real questions, we need to ask ourselves what happens next. There will be no answer to that, whether Mrs May is defeated or survives next week. We will not know what the basis of trade will be. We will not even know what the basis of our security arrangements will be. We need a few months more. It was folly of this Parliament to insert within British legislation the date of 29 March. Just a few more months would get us a lot further along the road. It would turn what is currently a very vague political declaration into one that my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn described earlier, with at least the heads of agreement so that people can understand the direction in which we are moving. We need that bit more time, yet the Government, the House of Commons and most of public opinion have set their face against finding more time.
I make a plea to Parliament—to the Government and to this House—that if we need more time and we need to reassure our population that we know where we are actually going, let us seek more time. Let us look at the possibility of other arrangements on trade, including the Norway option and others, and look at the implications of the likely judgment in Strasbourg and whether or not we need to put this back to the people. A little more time now would be well worth it, because Brexit may last forever.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I do not support the Prime Minister’s agreement, but I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said this morning: she has tried to deliver to a set of red lines derived from major planks of the winning side of the referendum. The problem is that something had to give, because the collective set of red lines turned out to be an impossibility, and what has given is customs. It might be called temporary or a backstop, but an arrangement based around a customs union with an accompanying fudge for Northern Ireland is the only thing left if you prioritise against freedom of movement and the direct effect of the European Court. I know because I have tried it myself. I went around and around the loop back in 2016 after the referendum: how would I negotiate it? To my chagrin then, I ended up with something remarkably similar to the backstop.
The way it happened in the real negotiation was that the backstop was agreed to unlock talks about trade. That did not really happen and it was, at best, talks about talks—or rather, constraints on talks. All we have is a declaration to use best endeavours to come to a real deal and to replace the backstop solution, under a protocol that embeds all the difficulties and red lines of each side that have prevented progress so far. The protocol is more of an obstacle course than a route map and requires more concessions than would be needed without it. We would be locked in, as eloquently described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith.
Moreover, I do not see how we can expect to line up trade deals with other countries while relying on the protocol because they will still say, “What is the relationship with the EU?” That will go on and on. We may escape Brexit on the news and we may escape news about trade agreements that are going on in secret, but the fact is that there is still a never-ending round of negotiations.
I understand businesses backing the withdrawal treaty, especially when told that the alternative is no deal. Many do not mind who makes the rules between us and the EU. They are not hung up on sovereignty and prefer to have just one set of rules. The potential for up to four years of implementation—you can rest assured that lobbying for the two-year extension will start soon—gives stability over the immediate cycle. Indeed, UK chief executives spend an average of only 4.8 years in the top job, so an awful lot of them will be out of their jobs and their horizon is not particularly long term—a common grievance that we have against our businesses. Their horizon is not the for ever that this treaty would put us in, and I say “treaty” to point out its permanence. Businesses want time to adjust their arrangements, maximise their use of assets in the UK for the time being, and have a bit longer to figure out where to move what. But in the political and broad economic sense, we have certainty over nothing.
I can remember when just-in-time supply lines were a political issue—on the one hand foreign firms sought to invest, and on the other there were concerns over the environmental effect of all the additional transportation. But it has boomed, and so too has all the other ease of business that followed on from the single market. Thanks to the withdrawal negotiations, everyone now knows more about the depth of our integration in the EU and how our trading relationships work. Moreover, it is not just us who know more; it has surprised many in the EU, too, including the leaders and Ministers of other member states. There is no shame or humiliation in admitting that we did not know it all; neither did they.
I recognise that some people consider the Single European Act to have been a mistake, but the reality we now see is that we cannot turn the clock back, and reversing out of 40 years of integration makes for a worse mistake than they considered that first Single European Act to be. Our young people are growing to voting age and will make it clear what they think of those who robbed them of their opportunities. Baby boomers took and enjoyed all the assets, and now they are stealing their children’s opportunities to study, work, love and marry with the freedom that they enjoyed. That is the rift already breaking down intergenerational solidarity; it cannot be fixed by agreeing a bad treaty that makes us all poorer. Being poorer through the years of austerity has not brought the country together.
We now have the facts about the consequences of withdrawal and knowledge of the deal, or non-deal, on offer. We know that it is a simple matter to reverse Article 50, so it has to be time to ask the people to choose.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, in the American state of Utah a condemned person used to have three unpalatable choices. He or she could choose between death by hanging, by firing squad or by beheading. Most chose the firing squad, a few hanging. No one chose beheading. We ourselves face three unpalatable, or difficult, choices. The first is a car-crash Brexit on WTO terms, without a seat belt. There are those who will submit to the surgeon’s knife when ill, or trust a ground engineer when they fly, but who none the less defy climate science or the expertise of the economists of the Bank of England and almost all other financial institutions, who advise that an immediate and ill-prepared Brexit would inflict a severe and destabilising blow on a UK economy not yet fully recovered from the 2008 shock, and that this blow would be followed by a long slow decline relative to our peers and neighbours. That is the beheading option, and I hope no one will choose it.
The second option is the Prime Minister’s. I think that she, supported by Olly Robbins, has done the best possible deal in all the circumstances. Hemmed in by the referendum outcome, by her party and by the power and conviction of Brussels, it is hard to believe that, plus or minus, anyone else could have done better. I strongly support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said: the deal the Prime Minister has achieved is an unavoidable consequence of the referendum decision, the bitter pills it contains an unavoidable surprise to those who held out false and unrealisable hopes from that negotiation.
The doubts about the Prime Minister’s deal are very reasonable. We would be rule-takers, albeit in the first instance of rules that we helped to invent. The backstop is a calculated risk, potentially a trap we cannot escape, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, emphatically explained to us earlier. Most importantly, we would be buying a pig in a poke—for the challenge of translating a political declaration on a massive array of tangled issues into a working reality still lies ahead of us, and is truly monumental.
The third option—my ideal—is to remain. Like a condemned man in Utah, I would rather have a reprieve. But it is not clear that the EU would embrace the necessary reform, particularly of free movement, that would satiate the Brexit urge in the British people; nor is it thinkable that Parliament can defy the democratic vote of the British people.
For all its risks and imperfections, for all that it is a mighty gamble, at this moment the PM’s deal appears the least worst option available. It averts catastrophe and offers us a difficult but probably navigable path to a halfway house—half out of a Europe that we are currently half in. But, but, but—if, as seems likely, a divided Parliament cannot support her option, or unite behind any other, and with the clock close to midnight, a new Conservative leader or a general election is unlikely to produce consensus. At that point, the only way out for us is a three-option referendum: WTO, the PM’s deal or remain.
In other walks of life, it is a commonplace to ratify a detailed deal previously given the go-ahead in principle. Whatever the outcome of a final referendum, we should recognise that, at long last, we have had the informed debate we lamentably failed to have in 2016. In that event, we must all stand by and wholeheartedly support whatever final choice the British people make.
Lord Owen (Ind SD)
My Lords, the Sunday Times has published a series of letters, the first one of which was the Prime Minister’s letter to the country. We then had Mr Blair’s letter to the EU. This week, I wrote to Members of the House of Commons; they had that letter in front of them on Monday morning. I will draw on it, if I may.
Let us be under no illusion. If we reach a situation where the House of Commons cannot forge an acceptable agreement, it is deadlocked. Then, the House of Commons and all of us will have lost our basic democracy. The referendum did not enter into what we would do. The people made one judgment: that they wanted to leave. They suffered a grave blow at 7 am when the former Prime Minister walked out on the job that he had told us he would stay with—in marked contrast to Wilson and Callaghan, who made it clear in 1975 that they would carry out the will of the electorate. During the campaign, they made it clear that they would do so.
What do we face now? I suggest that Members of this House start looking at what happened yesterday in the House of Commons when, very wisely, Back-Bench MPs and others took control of this process. The Government chose not to try—it would have been very difficult—to get consensus across the political parties through their leadership. Now, if you look at the speeches of Sir Oliver Letwin and Hilary Benn, you see the basis of an attempt to find an agreement in the Commons. We must wish them well.
In my letter to the Commons, I said very clearly:
“Your votes on December 11 are your choice and yours alone. This is about what the government and the UK should do if the Commons decides not to endorse the EU withdrawal agreement”.
There is an “if” there. After reading yesterday’s debate, nobody can think of any more ifs or buts. The agreement will go down. In the remainder of our debates, I beg this House to address the question of what will be offered to the people of this country by the House of Commons. It has already offered us the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which, unless it is blocked, will come into effect on 29 March next year. That is less than four months away.
What can be done? If you lose a major vote in the House of Commons, you have to decide what you will do. It is no use saying, “We will come back and tell you 21 days later”. It is vital that the world financial markets know immediately how the UK Government intend to proceed. It would be damaging even to wait until early the next day. That the Government should allow speculators and currency markets to dictate a repeat vote on the withdrawal agreement in some weeks’ time is totally disreputable and extremely dangerous. The House of Commons will not live with it. Let that idea be pushed aside.
When the withdrawal agreement is rejected, Parliament must seize the initiative; it must stop being the supplicant under Article 50 and not expect the 27 other nations that have performed their part of the agreement with great difficulty to revise it straightway. They will not do so. It is essential that we provide another reputable forum for debate and discussion. It may not achieve anything. At the end of this short period, we may not be able to get an agreement in the House of Commons. They will then be faced with voting down the withdrawal Act.
So what can we do? The Cabinet will know the result beforehand, and it must meet beforehand and tell her the sort of thing that she must say. It must tell the Prime Minister bluntly: “If you have lost the vote, you must open up another option to this”. Some people say that there are no options. On the best legal advice, I suggest a Prime Minister’s Statement immediately after the withdrawal vote is lost. It has been carefully looked at by experts in the EEA and by lawyers, particularly international lawyers. It goes like this:
“As a consequence of tonight’s votes I am sending letters immediately to all the other 31 parties to the European Economic Area Agreement, the EU itself, its 27 member states, and the three EFTA states. The letters will state our intention to continue in the European Economic Area as a non-EU member from the end of March 2019. We intend to do this because we as a country signed the EEA Agreement as the UK in 1992 and we have not as the UK given the 12 months’ notice in writing required to withdraw from that agreement”.
We would withdraw from that agreement under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, but we have not done so now and it is perfectly possible for it to be continued. She would go on to say:
“If EFTA or the EU countries challenge our entitlement then we will take our case to arbitration under international law using the Permanent Court of Arbitration which was endorsed by all EU countries in the Withdrawal Agreement. I am writing to the Secretary-General of the PCA. I hope this action will unite many different viewpoints in Parliament. It has the merit of being very simple. We, like the three other non-EU members of the EEA, would not be starting out as part of the EU customs union, though we could pursue it. We could pursue our own EU-UK free trade agreement on the lines of Canada plus plus plus—President Tusk added the three pluses at one time proposed by the EU—and we will immediately start with other free trade agreement negotiations. There is no necessity for us to join EFTA. We would not be fixing any time limit as to how long we stay in EEA. Like the other three non-EU countries, we would continue to be bound, as are all parties to the EEAA, to give one year’s notice of leaving. We would not ask anything more from the EU than we are entitled to under the EEAA”.
I am under a strict time limit and cannot include the other four paragraphs. They are in the Times, and I will make them available if anyone wants to see them.
I beg this House to be constructive in helping the House of Commons do its duty. It is going to be a very difficult four months, but we need this other extra option. It is our right to stay in the EEA. Within that negotiation, we would be entitled to ask the EU to look with us at those parts of the withdrawal agreement which are very helpful to them and to us. One of them was the standstill arrangement until December 2020. We were ready to pay for it, and we would still be ready to pay for it. The derogations in the EEA agreement allow us to make it within the EEA agreement. We are due to pay £39 billion; about £17 billion of that is what we definitely owe them. The extra is for having the privilege of having another length of time. I agree so much with what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said. We have to have more time. The EEA option offers us more time.
To the leader of the Liberal Party I say: “Don’t talk about Norway supinely accepting it”. There is nothing supine about the Norwegian people. They have fashioned a very interesting agreement, keeping their own sovereignty while not being in the EU, having an EFTA Court, and having a different arrangement. Going on disparaging it, as the Government have done over the last few months in order to have no choice, is not doing a service to democracy in our country, in the European Union or in the European Economic Area.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, there is much to study in what the noble Lord, Lord Owen, has just said—but, if he will forgive me, I shall not follow him down his line of argument. However, I would dearly like to follow the route to verdict set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. I agree with their analysis of the issues, very largely for the reasons that they each explained. I was also much taken by the arguments of my noble friend Lord Tugendhat. All things being equal, I would like the House of Commons to reach the same conclusion as they did: namely, that, for all its imperfections, the Government’s proposed withdrawal agreement should be supported.
But all things are not equal. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, demonstrated that the Northern Ireland backstop may lead to unintended consequences, and certainly to consequences that may not have been fully thought through. I accept that the backstop is just that and not intended to be used except in the event of certain other things not coming into being, such as a free trade agreement with the European Union. The chances of its not having to be deployed are so small as to be discountable. However, the noble Lord threw a new light on the backstop, beyond the Attorney-General’s advice of 13 November, which I and, I am sure, many others had not previously appreciated. I hope that the Government in the Commons will study what he said with great attention. Indeed, Parliament needs to take account of it with thoughtfulness and care.
Even if the noble Lord, Lord Bew, is wrong about the effect of the backstop and its relationship to the Belfast or Good Friday agreement, another factor makes my support for the Government’s withdrawal agreement utterly hopeless. It does not take a psephological soothsayer to anticipate the result of next Tuesday’s vote in the other place. The political reality is that the Government will be defeated—and by what I suspect will be a large majority, much of it made up by Conservative Members of Parliament, not all of whom are Brexiteers. That a former Government Chief Whip and a remainer, Mark Harper, has announced that he will not support the agreement is significant both because he is a careful and thoughtful person and because he has, I gather, never voted against the Government before. If he is prepared to go against the Government, I suspect that many others will do so, too. I feel like someone sitting at the bedside of a terminally ill patient. I can watch and hope and regret that what is about to happen will happen—but there is nothing that I can do to stop the inevitable.
We had a foretaste yesterday of what is likely to happen if the Government persist in the face of the arithmetic to require the Commons to support their agreement. They were defeated three times in pretty short order, on the contempt question and then on the Grieve amendment. I believe that that will happen again next Tuesday and it gives me no pleasure whatever to say so.
Beyond the fact that there is no majority in the Commons for the Government’s agreement, there appears to be no majority for any other proposal to implement the result of the referendum. I fear that we are witnessing an accelerating descent into political chaos which will make what has happened so far look like a pretty well-organised affair. I also fear that, unless things take a remarkable turn for the better, the United Kingdom will, for want of an agreed policy and the political will to unify the contestants in Parliament and outside it, get to 29 March next year with no deal in place, and with all the difficulties for our economy, our cohesion as a country and our well-being that have been mentioned by several today, and most pointedly by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in his telling contribution.
I have tried to comfort myself over the past few weeks by thinking that, as with so many things in life, a no-deal Brexit will not be as bad as I fear but not as good as some have predicted. It is going to be a mixed picture of triumphs and disasters for some while, but we are probably looking forward to a period of instability, uncertainty and confusion, both domestically and in our relations with the EU and its constituent countries. To prevent that, we need to stir ourselves to make a huge effort to ensure that, when the Government’s agreement as presently drafted is defeated, we move forward with dispatch but with cool heads and with large doses of common sense and political realism.
Although I can offer no immediate practical solution to this mess, I will offer one or two reasons for it which may inform the way forward, even if it does lead me into analysis paralysis. We must not have another referendum on this question. It is easy to say—so I will say it—that, despite the relative narrowness of the result following a large turnout, we are politically and morally obliged to respect the result and to try our best to implement our departure from the European Union. Of course we all try to interpret the result and the unsatisfactory nature of the debate before the referendum to suit our own cause. I wish the result had been different—but it was not, and we gain nothing by complaining about that. My experience of the referendum, the campaign and its divisive consequences lead me to think that, even if it is politically possible, another referendum would be a terrible mistake that would lead to further and worse divisions in this country that would take an age to heal, without solving our current dilemma.
The second point flows from that referendum. It has been recently and more eloquently explained by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. I have no doubt that he will say something about this when he speaks on Monday. We have—I plead guilty to this as someone who voted for the referendum when I was in the House of Commons— created a destructive tension between two sorts of democratic process: government by representative Parliament and government by plebiscite. If Parliament or government subcontracts high-level decision-making to the population as a whole, it creates a rod for its own back if it does not make the terms and the consequences of the delegated decision superabundantly clear. We did not.
We now have, inconveniently—as been pointed out—a Conservative Party in the Commons that is becoming increasingly pro-Brexit led by a remainer, even if a quiet one, and a largely pro-remain Labour Party led by a closet Brexiteer. This state of affairs has led not to rational debate on Brexit and its terms but to a series of vicious feuds. Mistrust of politics and politicians is, I suggest, at an all-time high. The public are angry and feel ill used and ill served, as such discussions as we have in the country on this subject become more bad tempered, sharp and unconstructive.
I therefore urge the Prime Minister, who deserves considerable respect for many achievements in the face of adversity, to see that her deal in its present form is not going to be accepted by the Commons, and to start looking around the corner to see what can be achieved, rather than doggedly pressing on with trying to achieve what will not succeed. Listen to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bew: rework the Northern Ireland backstop and come back to Parliament in January when tempers are cooler. To say that there is no alternative might have worked when the Government had a large majority, as they did under Margaret Thatcher. The Conservative Government could ride out the Suez crisis when it had a majority of 50. We do not, so I urge my right honourable friend to get across to Brussels and return with a reworked backstop.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord. I was particularly moved by his remarks about plebiscite. I will explain why. I want to say a few words about the young. I have spent the last two days interviewing candidates for admission to my college in Cambridge. These are 17 year- olds from diverse backgrounds, all hugely intelligent, sharp and well informed, who are under great pressure, because there were 36 of them in two days competing for—I will not tell you for how many places. I am not allowed to tell you that, but it was tiny. I have done this for 15 years. Each year, they are a window through which I can keep in touch with what the young are doing. Every year, there is a different topic that concerns them.
It was not very difficult, I thought, to presume that Brexit would be among such topics this year. But, for the first time ever, I thought that they were a really troubled generation. They were unhappy, and their troubles went much deeper, although Brexit was part of them. I was interviewing them for politics, and what they wanted to talk about was the inadequacy of our political institutions. I wanted to bring a group of them to talk to noble Lords—they were so sharp and disillusioned with the quality of the handling of Brexit and the debate about it. One said, “My generation is the most tested in the history of this country. Since I was at primary school, we have been under pressure to be excellent, but I don’t see any sign that people in Parliament feel any pressure at all to be excellent in the way that they handle Brexit”. Luckily, I was not being interviewed by them. It is very hard to think how to defend the deal that is before this House.
I asked myself: if I were to vote for the deal and it was passed, how would I defend it to the people I am interviewing? It is clear to me that in economic terms we will be poorer as a country. I know we can argue about how grave it is—I quite like the description of some commentators that it would be like an economic slow puncture—but on any basis we will be poorer. Who will have to pay the price? It will not be our generation, if I may generalise—it will be the young. It will not be just for a year or two; it will be for decades. How do you explain to them that that is a good thing?
We will be politically weaker in the world. One of the main reasons we applied to go into the Common Market was to increase our political influence in the world and not just stand on our own on the edge of Europe. I was privileged to be present when Macmillan was discussing whether Ted, then in opposition, should make a second application to join. Macmillan said two things: someone had remarked that the main challenge would be the French but Macmillan said “No, the big problem will be my party; there will always be a group who will be unhappy with our membership of Europe”. He obviously knew his party. When someone said that there would be great economic advantage in joining, he said, “Yes, but the real argument is that for our security, our defence and our weight in the world, we must be part of Europe”.
Now we are reversing that—we are going backwards. That is the wish of the people. But it is hard to explain that to the young, who see themselves as part of Europe. They see themselves as Europeans. When the Prime Minister talks about migration, they hear her stopping them exploring the world and having adventures in Europe—that is what turns them on. This is nailing down the coffin of their ambitions. How do we defend the Government’s attitude?
We will leave our strongest negotiating weapons at the door on 29 March, if we leave then, and enter the negotiating chamber for much the biggest part of the negotiations in a weak position, on bended knee. Earlier in the debate, I found myself imagining—forgive me—the Front Bench explaining to Mrs Thatcher the deal that they were recommending to Parliament and to the people. I have a fair idea of some of the things she would say, but I cannot repeat them in polite company. I would hate to be in their shoes but I would love to be the minute-taker—it would be great entertainment. She would be shocked by this deal, the backstop, the risks and the gamble that we are taking with this great country. I am confident of that.
The future will not be one of peace and settlement of this argument. We have arguably been having this argument over Europe for 500 years. The first Brexit was when we left the Church of Rome. It will go on bitterly: what we have done has been to make it more and more bitter. The need for reconciliation is one that I sympathise with hugely. The point about the young is that they have no vision of what Britain will be like in the future. One of them said, “I know why we want to leave; I don’t know where we want to go to. Why are we doing this? It is the young who will have to pay the price”. Therefore, I say to the Front Bench: I will be interested to know how they will persuade young people that this is a good thing to do, because I would be ashamed to offer and recommend it to my children and grandchildren.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, three years and two months ago, at the Second Reading of the EU Referendum Bill, I said that it was “absolutely vital” that the referendum was,
“seen to be robust and fair. We want to settle this question for a generation. I will possibly vote to leave unless the negotiations come up with good results but, if I do so and I lose, I will not complain unless the referendum has been unfair, and I am sure that others on all sides will take that view”.—[Official Report, 13/10/15; col. 157.]
The negotiations did not get good results, so I voted to leave, but how wrong I was about that last point, that others would respect the results.
I have had to watch the losers of that referendum explaining why people voted to leave, like pith-helmeted explorers talking about a tribe of hunter-gatherers whose language they do not understand. They briefed the Brusselscrats on how best to beat Britain in the negotiations; they said that they would respect the results but then did not do so; they urged a second referendum without bothering to specify the question, and talked down the country. How proud I was of our Prime Minister, however, for her ringing words of courage and determination at Lancaster House, in Florence and at the Mansion House; for her insistence that no deal was better than a bad deal; for her assertion that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed; and for her assurance that we would leave the customs union—that system of imperial preference—whatever happened, and be free to pursue trade deals with the rest of the world. She said that £39 billion would get us a comprehensive free-trade agreement before exit day so that the next 20 months would be an implementation period, not a transition period, and that we would prepare properly for no deal in case it proved necessary.
Throughout the long debates in this Chamber, therefore—on the referendum Bill, the Article 50 Bill and the withdrawal Bill—for three years I have voted with the Government every time, even as I had to watch some of my colleagues speaking, voting, scheming and even whipping against their own party and their own manifesto. Then, quite suddenly, there came a bit of a sinking feeling earlier this year when I realised that my side had apparently been pursuing a somewhat different deal: a pessimistic, damage-limitation Brexit. It seemed—this is how people in the north-east of England seemed to react to it when I talked to them—to be based on appeasing, conceding and retreating, like Brave Sir Robin in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” and that the future relationship is still just a list of airy aspirations, dependent on best endeavours and against the deadline of a backstop.
When I said three years ago that I hoped the losers would accept the result of the referendum, it never occurred to me that I needed to worry that the winners might not accept the result. Imagine—those of your Lordships who voted to remain, which is most of those in this Chamber—you had won by 52% to 48% but, two years later, finding that your Government were negotiating a half-out deal with a permanent backstop trapdoor with no exit, which prevented our fully rejoining the EU. Would that have felt fair?
I know it has been very difficult to negotiate a deal, and I have tried very hard to persuade myself that this is the right deal, but I cannot, especially after reading the Attorney-General’s advice this morning and listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. If it seems to some on my side that that is being disloyal, then I ask: where is the loyalty of my party to its own manifesto?
Next week, the other place will probably reject this deal, as we have heard. What then? I genuinely do not know and nobody does. The paradox of this situation is that every possibility that we consider seems highly implausible, and yet one of them will happen. We must surely have one last try at getting the backstop softened or taken out of the agreement and put into the future relationship paper so that it cannot be a trap without an exit. At the same time we must prepare, as fast and as best we can, for a bare-bones arrangement to cover the essentials that we will need, and not because that is what we want. Of course I want free trade with the EU but not on these dangerous terms, which could deliver eternal half-membership and bitterness in the long run and, in the short run, a Corbyn premiership, an outcome I know many on the Back Benches opposite do not want either. We must get ready to tackle the bottlenecks at the ports, prevent the imposition of tariffs and do whatever it takes to keep things flowing. Of course it would be painful but it would be the EU’s fault at least as much as our own for trying to impose a Carthaginian peace on this proud country.
Whether 29 March is a disaster is not something that can be modelled, certainly not by the discredited methods employed by the Treasury and the disgracefully politicised Bank of England—the people who brought you forecasts of 500,000 to 800,000 more unemployed if we voted to leave, whereas we have 250,000 fewer; who brought you a forecast of recession, whereas we have had steady growth; and who brought you forecasts of a collapse of foreign direct investment, whereas we saw a 12.5% increase in foreign direct investment in 2017, and just today the biopharmaceutical firm UCB has announced a £1.3 billion investment in the UK.
Why can it not be modelled? Because what happens is in the hands of people. We can make it a disaster or a success, depending on what we do. I have no doubt that the vast majority of British people will want to ensure that the country gets through this crisis and takes off afterwards. However, equally, I have no doubt that some people—in, let us say, the BBC, the CBI, the FT, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the intelligentsia and much of the chattering classes—will be longing, hoping and perhaps even plotting to ensure that it is a disaster. That gives me pause. It makes me worry that, because of insufficient preparation and the determination to fail, we might indeed face real problems.
What is more, it takes two to prepare, and the EU also needs to be preparing. I have it on quite good authority that the EU is refusing co-operation with us on some of the preparation that we need to do in the event that this deal fails. I would like the Minister to address whether that is the case and what can be done to improve that situation.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, this is not the first time that I have followed the noble Viscount in this House in a debate on Europe. It is always a pleasure to debate with him—he is always interesting and original—but I have to say there is often a strand that leads to paranoia in what he says, and that was true today. Something that worries me is that over the last few years there has appeared on the right wing of politics, and I think the noble Viscount represents the right wing of politics very well, a rejection of the values of rationality, evidence-based decisions, expertise and experience, principles on which our civilisation has been based since the Enlightenment and on which the advance of science has been based for a very long time. That worries me very much.
I do not suppose that many of us or indeed any of us had ever thought or heard of a Government who knowingly pursue a policy that is likely to reduce the wealth of the country that they govern. I suppose the reason why we had not heard about that until the last few days is that, as I am told, there has never been such an occasion in history before. Even reaching through the darkness of the past into the ancient world, no one can come up with an example even in Herodotus of a Greek tyrant who did such an irrational thing. The phenomenon is quite extraordinary.
More extraordinary, surprising and depressing still to a lot of us is that if that phenomenon was going to arise somewhere in the human race one day, of all the 193 countries in this world it would be in our country that it happened. I think that is very frightening. The situation is grotesque. Where there is a breakdown in the governance of the country, and when the Government of the day have obviously lost their bearings, a great responsibility falls upon Members of the House of Commons, and I am sure that they will discharge that responsibility on Tuesday. It is not for me to tell them what to do and I certainly will not—it is not any intention of mine to give them advice—but the purpose of arranging this debate in advance of their decision is, I suppose, that at least we can express some opinions, and if anyone in the Commons wants to take any notice of them then they are free to do so.
If I had half an hour, I could set out my own view on what should happen over the next six months, but I do not. There are, however, three things that I think should not happen. First, no one should be allowed to get away with saying, “Vote for me; support me; follow me, and I will renegotiate with the European Union and get a better deal”. That is rubbish. There is no possibility of renegotiating with the European Union and getting a better deal, nor should there be. No self-respecting person in its shoes, having come to an arrangement like that, would reopen matters and start renegotiating. It would be a fatal thing to do. In the EU’s case, it would be very conscious that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Europe they are dealing with now might change and, in a few weeks or a month or two, their successors would come back and say: “Now I’m in charge so I would like to start renegotiating”. It would be absolute chaos. It is not possible and, in my view, it is dishonest to suggest it. It would be a siren call to disaster. It would be an abdication, preventing us from taking the necessary decisions, and wasting valuable time. I very much hope that that does not happen and that no one is tempted to go down that particular road.
The other thing that we need to bear in mind is that no referendum can be altered. A referendum can be altered constitutionally—I accept that entirely—but politically and psychologically, it would be a great mistake to try to alter one except by another referendum. If we wish to collectively change our mind as a country, the only vehicle for doing that must be another referendum.
All of us find ourselves in a difficult situation, not knowing exactly what to do in these difficult circumstances. It is clear to me that if a Government do not have the confidence of the House of Commons, there must be changes. We cannot have a situation in which a Prime Minister who has been rejected in a project with which he or she has been identified for a very long time, remains in power. It would mean that the Prime Minister has no credibility, either domestically or abroad, and that is undesirable for the country as a whole.
I want to add something on freedom of movement, which has not been mentioned at all in these debates, although it should have been. I accept what I think is the majority view of commentators and experts that it was freedom of movement and not the economy—as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said in a brilliant speech a few moments ago—that moved most people to vote for Brexit in the referendum. One understands the emotions that sometimes arise in such contexts. I am sorry to say that, since the beginning of time, all human beings have had a slightly tribal instinct and a suspicion of foreigners. It is not always the most attractive aspects of human personality that come to the fore in contexts like that.
Nevertheless, those who voted for the end of freedom of movement and the great reduction in immigration that they were hoping for at that time have already been betrayed by the Government. The Government have now realised that you cannot run the British economy without foreigners, and they have explicitly rejected their previous policy of reducing net immigration to less than 100,000 people a year. In that situation, interesting choices arise, but the Government have made it clear that they want to replace immigration from the rest of the EU under the freedom of movement principle with immigration from the third world. I think we should probe the reasons for doing that and the merits or demerits of doing so. This is a sensitive subject, but that is not a reason for not touching it. I think it is a great abdication not to talk about difficult subjects when they have a great importance for public policy.
Most of us will have met many thousands of people from the rest of the European continent, not just from countries in eastern Europe such as Romania, Lithuania and Poland but also from France, Spain and Portugal, and so forth, who have been working in this country—very many of them in the NHS and the catering and entertainment industry, in bars and restaurants and in shops. Mostly, they seem to be doing a very good job. I have no doubt at all that there are people from any part of the world who could do a very good job. But if we replace immigrants from the rest of the European Union with people from the third world, they will presumably mostly come from those parts of the third world where there is the greatest degree of emigration and the greatest numbers of people wanting to leave. The countries where there is the greatest emigration at the moment are well known; if I am not mistaken, they are Syria, Somaliland, Eritrea, South Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq. All those countries have had a difficult history in recent years and the tradition of political violence and extremism. Cultural integration issues would arise in a context that we all ought to think about very carefully. It would be quite irresponsible just to brush those matters under the carpet.
There are other reasons why there is a good case to be made for freedom of movement within the European Union rather than immigration from outside. First, freedom of movement, from a purely selfish point of view, is a valuable instrument of economic stabilisation. If the economy is overheating and there is a shortage of labour, you can introduce people from the rest of the EU; and when the economy turns down, the experience is that a lot of them tend to go home. That is splendid, and you can carry on with the higher growth rate of the economy for longer, avoid recessions and so forth and stabilise the economy. People do not normally go home to Eritrea or South Sudan. For very obvious reasons, it is the last place they would want to go.
Secondly, freedom of movement is a reciprocal principle. We have benefits in that we can go and work in those countries, and indeed, I made use of those myself as a young man. I do not know why the Government do not recognise the merits of freedom of movement. I do not think that this matter has been properly explored or properly explained. I think we should hear from the Government a rationale for their recent perverse policy in this area.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I respectfully remind noble Lords that the advisory speaking time is seven minutes so that everybody gets the opportunity to speak.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I recently listened to the debate in this Chamber on the Kindertransport, and heard the experiences of so many families in this country who suffered the destruction of war and the sadness of separation in the ensuing years after the division of Germany. In fact, my own family suffered not only from the effects of the two world wars but from the division of Europe through the Warsaw Pact. Cousins whom we discovered after the fall of the Berlin Wall have told us about their sufferings and hopes for peace in Europe, their sorrow at the loss of the UK from Europe, and their children and grandchildren, who see themselves very much as part of Europe and its future. The debate restated to me how many have benefited from the years of peace brought about as a result of the formation of the European Union.
Recently, I read about some of the events in Germany during the 1930s, and I asked people I knew why nobody did anything about them as they gained momentum. I believe there was a feeling that people knew what the direction of the events was, but they felt powerless as to how to stop them. Many of us have that feeling. We cannot ignore the rise of the far right, not only in our own country but across Europe and the world. It has produced politics based on hatred and division, and it seems unthinkable that we propose to leave our closest allies at a moment when we should be working together to fight for liberal values, principles and beliefs.
Yet we are proposing to leave the EU, with very little agreed other than intentions and hopes. As many noble Lords have said already, the agreement and the political statement are vague and lacking in specifics. Indeed, they give us little more than a flimsy tissue of assertion, ambitions and aspirations. Let us look at a little of the language. The parties are committed to a “high level” of co-operation. They are,
“endeavouring to adopt decisions by the end of 2020 if the applicable conditions are met”.
“Appropriate arrangements” and “best endeavours” are the language of these documents. As others have said, there is huge danger in the fact that we are contemplating leaving the EU after 40 years of close co-operation with little more than a vague statement of intent on which to base our future.
Members of the EU Select Committee, including myself, have been struck by the views of many witnesses who describe the real vulnerability of the UK in leaving the EU not on a basis of certainty or clarity but with all the substantive issues still to be negotiated. Whether it is security, the European arrest warrant, shared information systems, reciprocal healthcare, medicines, sport and culture—the arrangements for sportsmen and sportswomen, musicians, actors and entertainers to be able to cross frontiers simply to go about their daily business—if things go ahead as planned, we will be outside the EU when all these substantive issues are negotiated.
These matters and many more will have to be agreed between ourselves and the other 27 Parliaments when we are outside the EU as a rule-taker, with little influence and no leverage. It is a common view that at least 10 years of negotiations lie ahead, whatever the aspirations of the Government. Somebody said to me recently that, as it took us 14 years to get into the European Union, we should not be surprised if it takes us quite a while to get out. That must be the case, but how would we have felt a few years ago if someone had told us that we would leave and then settle the arrangements afterwards? We would not have believed it. To those who have said we need more time, I support that. Had people been aware, when they thought of the amount of time ahead for negotiations, that at this stage they would still not know how they would travel abroad, whether they could get their medicines, whether their pets could have passports or whether they could go on holiday without worrying, many would have been shocked. They were never led to believe this.
As the most reverend Primate said, we have a moral choice: we should never be afraid to speak from our hearts. If this Brexit will harm our country’s future, make people poorer and threaten our position in the world—our ability to construct a future for the benefit of our people—then it is our duty not just to say so, but to fight it. If we do not, there will be even more scope for division and resentment. Referenda are not an ideal form of government; I agree about that. But the problem is that the referendum genie is out of the bottle. I do not believe any change of direction will be possible without a vote on the current deal. To the people who say that this would be divisive, my response is that the situation is extremely divisive now; it is getting more so as people realise that they are losing out and have been lied to on many issues. What hope for reconciliation—if that is what we want to achieve, as I certainly do—if there are more constraints, more costs, fewer benefits, and the people who lose out are the poor and the dispossessed?
Now that the reality of the problems is clear, the only way we have a chance of stopping this march to massive self-harm is by giving people the right to vote to approve the deal or say that they prefer to remain. This must be a decision taken for the long term; even if it is fraught with the utmost difficulties, we must get it right or our children and grandchildren will not forgive us.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the Leader of the House started this debate by saying that we are implementing the express will of the people. According to her, this is a deal that will protect jobs. On the other hand, the former Governor of the Bank of England, the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, has just said that this deal is the “worst of all worlds”. This is a lose-lose. Although the withdrawal agreement is 875 pages long, the political declaration, which is the basis of our future relationship, started at six pages, got to 26 and is not legally binding. It is full of waffle—platitudes and best endeavours—and takes our country into a completely blindfold Brexit, with an inability unilaterally to withdraw from the backstop, and with a transition period to the end of 2020, which has already been talked about being increased to 2022. We are being presented with uncertainty to infinity and beyond.
As for being in control of our fishing, even before negotiations have started the French are demanding to fish in our waters. Ironically, 75% of our home-caught fish is exported—mostly to the European Union. To me the most important aspect of our 45 years of membership is that the EU has helped to bring peace to Europe. I would pay the £8 billion a year, which is 1% of government expenditure, for the peace and the security arrangements that EU membership brings us.
Now we are told we will not have access to Galileo. What about the European arrest warrant? What about European police forces physically working in each other’s countries including here in the UK? Brexit also threatens the very security of our union, including the 20 year-old Good Friday agreement, which has brought peace to Northern Ireland.
What about frictionless trade, a term not seen at all in these documents? What about the shocking revelation from Dominic Raab when he was Brexit Secretary that he had not realised the importance of the Dover-Calais freight corridor to our trade? Here is an individual who is advocating a hard Brexit, crashing out over the white cliffs of Dover.
All this talk from Brexiteers, and from the Leader of the House today, about Brexit allowing us to forge a new path around the world and the Brexiteer mantra of “global Britain”—what a lot of nonsense! We have already been global Britain. We are one of the most global economies in the world. Almost 50% of our trade is with the EU—45% of our exports and 55% of our imports. On top of that, through the FTAs with 50 countries, we have 17% of our exports through the EU. Two-thirds of our trade is with and through the EU. Will we go global by going after the other one-third that includes America, China and the whole of the Commonwealth, including India, which makes up just 9% of our trade? India has only nine free trade deals with any countries in the world, and not one with a western country. For countries such as India an EU-India free trade agreement is far more important than a UK-India one. We are talking about 500 million people and 28 countries versus one country and 66 million people. The British public have been sold a pup.
What about immigration? EU net migration has now fallen to 74,000, whereas non-EU migration is at a record level of 248,000. The Government have the ability to control non-EU migration and a target to reduce net migration to under 100,000. This is sheer hypocrisy. The Conservative Government keep boasting about creating 3 million jobs, but we have 3.5 million people from the European Union over here with 4% unemployment. Without them, we would have an acute labour shortage. Then there is that fact that EU migrants contribute billions to the economy, far more than they take out in benefits. We already have the ability to control EU migration through an EU regulation that allows us to repatriate EU nationals after three months. We never use that. Can the Minister tell us why the public do not know about this?
The migration crisis from Syria and the Mediterranean was at its peak in 2015. There is no question that it influenced the Brexit vote. Today it is far lower and nowhere near as alarming to the public as it was three years ago, sad though it still is. What is so bad is the awful way the Government have handled the Brexit process, trying to bypass Parliament at every stage. They tried to implement Article 50 without Parliament’s approval. They tried to avoid giving Parliament a meaningful vote, which is what we are having now. They tried to avoid disclosing the legal advice and ended up being in contempt of Parliament. Now the Attorney-General has released the advice and there it is in bold type:
“In conclusion, the current drafting of the Protocol, including Article 19, does not provide for a mechanism that is likely to enable the UK lawfully to exit the UK wide customs union without a subsequent agreement. This remains the case even if parties are still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believe that talks have clearly broken down and there is no prospect of a future relationship agreement. The resolution of such a stalemate would have to be political”.
Far from Brexit taking back control, we are losing control. As a Parliament and as a country our sovereignty is being threatened. As the Attorney-General said earlier this week, the Government are doing this by taking a “calculated risk”. How dare the Government take a calculated risk with our citizens’ livelihoods and our children’s future? This is irresponsible to the extreme. How dare the Government continually vandalise parliamentary sovereignty? We are losing our seats in the EU Parliament. We are losing our EU Commissioner. We are losing our seat on the European Council. We are losing our say. Our global standing has been diminished day by day. London has lost its position as the world’s number one financial centre to New York. The whole world does not want us to leave the EU, including the EU countries themselves.
With Northern Ireland, the Achilles heel of Brexit, we are threatening the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Scotland is rebelling and might break away. Wales, which voted to leave, is now rebelling too. Northern Ireland voted to remain, Scotland voted to remain, business voted to remain, London voted to remain and the youth voted to remain. By March 2019, two of my children who were not old enough to vote in June 2016 will be old enough to vote, and they have had no say in their future. Approaching 2 million youngsters who were not legally allowed to vote two and a half years ago can now vote, and over 85% of the youth want to remain. They did not turn out in 2016 and they regret it. If there is another referendum, they will turn out in droves. The Government are giving us Hobson’s choice between their awful deal and no deal. There is a much better choice and that is no Brexit via a people’s vote.
We have heard just this week from the Advocate-General of the Court of Justice of the European Union that the UK can unilaterally withdraw Article 50. Democracy should be dynamic. This country is being held to ransom to respect the will of the people in an outdated vote that took place two and a half years ago. The demographics and facts have changed. In a normal democracy, you can change your mind every five years, so we should respect the will of the people today, not as it was two and a half years ago. Today, the polls show that 54% would vote to remain and that 55% want a people’s vote. Just a few hours ago, a YouGov poll reported that 38% of people believe that the UK was right to vote for Brexit, whereas 49% think that Brexit was a wrong decision. That is the biggest gap to date. The number believing that Brexit was a mistake is at its highest since the referendum and will only get higher. I cannot understand why people worry about a second referendum further dividing the country. How much more divided can we get than 52% against 48%? The polls show that if we have another referendum, many more people will vote to remain.
In conclusion, my favourite saying is that good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment. It was bad judgment to have a referendum on such a complex issue covering 45 years; it was bad judgment to give the people just four months in which to make a decision; it was bad judgment not to have had a two-thirds majority threshold, which would have prevented a decision being made on a margin of 52:48; and it was bad judgement to rush into implementing Article 50 on an advisory referendum.
The EU has been accused of bullying us. The EU has not been bullying us; we have chosen to leave. We opted in to Europe and have had a lot of opt-outs—we are not part of the eurozone and not part of Schengen. Now, we want to opt out of Europe but have all the opt-ins. It is time to get back on to the top table of the world. We should stop wasting precious time, energy and money and, instead, focus on the major issues, such as child poverty and rising violent crime. The people have seen that the Brexit emperor has no clothes. The truly democratic decision now would be to go back to the people and let them have a say. That is the choice, not a hopeless deal or no deal. That would be respecting the will of the people.
Churchill talked about the “sunlit uplands”, as did the most reverend Primate. We will get the sunlit uplands if we have a people’s vote. If they get a choice, they will choose to remain.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I wish that I could pack as much into a single speech as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, but I defy the challenge.
It is perhaps not a bad idea at this stage in the debate just to take a step back and to remember what the point of all this is. I was doing “Thought for the Day” on Radio 4 this morning and picked up on three words from the title of a Theos think-tank report on resilience in the north-east of England—people, place and purpose. They are three words that offer us a lens through which to see what all this is about. I endorse what the most reverend Primate said this morning in his speech.
Whatever the ultimate outcome, one of the legacies of the Brexit process thus far is, as I have said before, a corruption of public discourse, polarisation between people and communities, and a too frequent reduction of the polity to the merely economic. People are now too often categorised as either Punch or Judy; argument and nuance are dismissed in favour of emotive ad hominem judgment.
I understand that the withdrawal agreement is necessarily a technical means of achieving a political end, but the political declaration is aspirational in its language without offering a big vision for a society that is more than an economic market. Aspiration is good, but it needs to be accompanied by some articulated obligations and accountabilities. Therefore, I repeat the question that has come out in this debate: what is the big vision for British society, not just trade relationships, into which the technical agreement fits as a mechanism? What is the vision, and what is the future that we are asking our young people to build?
To be biblical for a moment, when Moses led the people of Israel out of captivity after 400 years in Egypt, they did not go straight to the promised land; they spent 40 years in the desert. There, a whole generation of romanticisers about the past died out. That is the point. You have to let a generation go in order to have a new generation that can envision and build a new society fired by their own imagination and not something that they were simply required to inherit from their forebears. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, that today we are talking about process and not event. I, along with my right reverend colleagues in this place, see deep divisions and significant challenges every day in our communities, and they will not be resolved immediately. In fact, they might define the next generation while we go through a sort of desert and all this gets sorted out. However, I do not believe that all this will evaporate merely by coming to a conclusion. This is not a zero-sum game and it must not become that.
The deal before us has the virtue of being a compromise. Compromise is often spoken of pejoratively, but it is a good thing because it assumes that people have listened to opposing arguments. They have weighed things up in the balance. They know that there might not be a perfect answer but they weigh things up and come to a judgment, and then together try to work out what is best for the common good. I may be naive but I do not believe that anyone could have got a better deal because, frankly, the people they were negotiating with would have been the same and the maths would have been the same, and we would have ended up with the same narrow criteria having to be worked through. It is a fantasy to say that someone else could have come up with a better compromise. That does not address the question of whether this compromise is acceptable but the options were never vast, even if some of the fantasies about Brexit were ridiculous. It was clear from the beginning that some circles were never capable of being squared, and the Government should have been honest about that from the word go.
I confess to being bewildered. I have heard some very powerful speeches today and in one sense I could go either way. I want to vote against an agreement that leaves the country poorer and possibly more isolated. I want to vote against a deal that commands so little support across the country or even in this building but is being pushed as a binary choice. Yet I also want to vote for it, mainly because a compromise was always going to be costly and this one gives both sides something, if not everything, that they wished for. However, I also want to abstain, as I think that the choice before us compels a short-term decision that might have medium to longer-term negative consequences. “No deal” is a failure to deal. This deal reduces the sovereignty—or control—that Brexit was supposed to recover and simply loses us the rather good deal that we already have within the EU. Another referendum is a risk, but it cannot be said to diminish parliamentary democracy any more than the first referendum did—that pass was sold in 2016.
I am in a difficult place, so I will carry on listening to the debate and then make my mind up on Monday. However, assuming, as I do, that there is no ideal outcome—that whatever outcome we come to will have us poorer than we are at the moment—in conclusion I would like to address two or three principles that might be getting lost but which might be worth bearing in mind as we go forward.
First, whatever the outcome of this process, how are we to take responsibility for what we have done and for shaping the United Kingdom and the Europe of the future? We do not just sail off into the sunset and say, “Now that’s all up to them”. I have no doubt that the United Kingdom, if it remains intact, will grow a younger generation who will create a prosperous and creative future for our islands, even if we suffer short-term loss. But the generation that has led us into this mess—my generation—might have to make way for those who can shape a new narrative for our collective future, and they will not be helped by self-exonerating blame games by those of us who can see ourselves only as victims. A new sort of leadership will be needed in future that can rise above the divisions and seeks to reconcile and unite people around a common vision for more than trade and economics.
Secondly, when we speak of “we” and “us”, that must include the EU 27. The demonisation of those remaining in the EU is infantile, counterproductive and unhelpful. If our language reflects who we are, then we are going to have a problem encouraging the next generation to speak, relate and behave like adults.
Finally, very briefly, whatever Brexit looks like in the end, we will still be left with the massive challenges of poverty, homelessness, debt, food banks, poor health among too many people, challenges in education when children come to school hungry, and so on—I could go on and on. We must move on to face the challenges of the NHS, castrated local authorities, transport failures, infrastructure and other consequences of a decade of austerity. The EU cannot be blamed for that lot.
If a divided people are once again to know that they belong—whichever way they voted in the referendum—they will need to hear from this place an articulation of vision, hope and reconciliation: that people in all places have a common purpose that is worth adopting.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, we all have to be highly selective in this debate but, before I address the central question of where we go from here, as the right reverend Prelate is on his way out, I would like to express my accord with the remarks he made and how many nails he knocked on the head, referring to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Back in April, a cross-party group of us submitted an amendment to the then European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, calling on Parliament to take back control, in effect—not to negotiate internationally itself, but to provide the Government with a mandate for the negotiations with the EU. It is a great pity that the other place did not adopt it because, however difficult it would have been for the Government then, it could well have helped them now. Parliament was excluded, but if the Government lose the meaningful vote next week, we in Parliament will need to step in with alternatives of our own.
We hear now the return of the dictum associated with Baroness Thatcher: “There is no alternative”. Some of us set out our alternative. I have been involved in producing a pamphlet, which I have here, on how we would return to the EEA through moving from Pillar 1, the EU, to Pillar 2, EFTA. I am afraid that I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, in a speech with which I otherwise had much sympathy, is right about the technical point here, which is that the EEA is in fact a twin-pillar organisation—the pillar of the EU and the pillar of EFTA. One can be in the EEA only if one belongs to one or the other of them. There would be scope for exploring further with the EU and EFTA about what we have proposed in this pamphlet, an alternative to the EU, which would be an evolving role of the European Economic Area. All Members of both Houses should have received one of these pamphlets, and I have further copies if anyone is keen to get this instead of a Christmas card.
We have a better alternative to the Government’s deal, and we must push ahead inter alia, otherwise the working people of this country would not only not be in the single market, with all its industrial aspects, but would be only in what is called a protected position on existing rights under the Social Chapter—that is, rights at work. Given all the evidence of disquiet in the country about where we are with jobs and our industrial future, I hope that this will not be left just for people with a trade union hat on to, as it were, push up the agenda of concern.
It has often been said that the objection to the EEA is that we would be a rule taker rather than a rule maker. But, apart from anything else, we would be in a position in the EEA to address what some of the EU people in Brussels now know has to be a decade of evolution in many of the protocols and workings of the EU/EFTA arrangement. Of course, it was Jacques Delors who, in 1990, established the EEA with a view to an evolution in the medium term. That is very important and would certainly include, de minimis, a strengthening of the consultative arrangements before legislation.
On the attitude of the Norwegian and Icelandic Governments, I will read out two quotes from the past few days to put them on the record. Mrs Solberg, the Norwegian Prime Minister, on the question of whether she would support Britain coming back, said:
“If that is what they really want, we will find solutions in the future. To find a good agreement is important for all European countries and I hope that we will see an orderly deal that doesn’t disrupt economic affairs in Europe”.
I say that because Norway’s biggest trading partner is, of course, ourselves. Norway sells natural gas, fish, and services in particular. The Icelandic Foreign Minister, Mr Thórdarson, said:
“We would be very positive towards the idea of the UK joining EFTA/EEA—you are the ones that started the organisation”.
The proposal that we are making should not in any sense be associated with the terminology used by Nick Boles MP, “Norway for now”—I think he may have rescinded that now. We are talking about a long-term relationship and an evolutionary one, and I think that phrase is not a very polite way to greet potential colleagues in Norway; nor, with great respect, is it a good idea to refer to us having entitlements in that regard. But I think the negotiations would be very constructive.
I was rather disappointed, for once, by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on the EU/EFTA option. It would make a great difference to the weight of EFTA. I have some knowledge of the background to this, and I think his word “supine” referred to the lack of weight in the EFTA pillar of the EEA. But we are a big elephant relative to the size of EFTA, and that itself would change things. I repeat: there is an appetite in Brussels to see some evolution in these arrangements.
Finally, I believe that in the next few weeks we cannot crash out; we have to find an alternative. We would have to do that in any event if we wish to make progress both with the extension of Article 50 and on the important political declaration to which our attention was drawn by my noble friend Lord Whitty.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, leaving the European Union is a political decision, not a business or a commercial one. In spite of the dishonest fear campaign, the people of this great country of ours voted to return the rule of their country to within these shores—a return to democracy, where the people of Great Britain govern themselves through their Members of Parliament: their elected representatives. The people voted this way in spite of the deliberately inaccurate forecasts promoted by various organisations anxious to continue being ruled by unelected bureaucrats in another country.
This seemed to be understood by the Prime Minister when she said that,
“no deal is better than a bad deal”.
Since then, she has stated a number of red lines. Each new red line was a signal of firm principle. Firm principles were abandoned as fast as deckchairs in a summer squall. She said that we would leave the customs union, that the integrity of the United Kingdom would be maintained and that we would no longer be under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—all abandoned, with the Prime Minister claiming that no principle had been abandoned.
It is possible that the Government believed the stream of negative stories put about by the same people who urged us to go into the ERM and then that it would be a disaster if we left the ERM, and who said that we could not survive outside the single currency and must join the euro—the Treasury was a notable exception to this foolishness. Then there were the forecasts made during the referendum that proved to be so spectacularly wrong. Now the same hobgoblins are at it again. The Bank of England is making irresponsible forecasts, the most recent described by the distinguished remainer economist Andrew Sentance as “highly speculative and extreme”. Any GCSE economics candidate submitting such duff answers would be invited to resit the examination or contemplate a different career choice.
On supply chain interruption, I know that this Government have their limitations, but will they ban the importation of essentials? It is our decision whether or not to limit imports. The CBI has simply never got anything right—indeed, it is an achievement to have got everything quite so wrong over such a long period. The Treasury’s referendum economic forecasts created a whole new dimension of getting things wrong. These elite organisations, cocooned in their metropolitan fortress, out of touch with the country, as well as being unable to accurately forecast seem unable to grasp the basic, fundamental point that the British people want to leave, and said so in the largest plebiscite ever. The people do not wish to stay attached to the EU in any fashion dreamed up by people quite out of touch with reality.
Did those negotiating either wish to sabotage what people had voted for, or have they never been near a negotiating table? They started discussions by giving away £39 billion and followed that up by accepting that the Irish border is our problem when, as no southern Irish Government would contemplate a hard border, it is the EU’s weakness and problem.
There have been comments during this debate about the horrors of no deal. There is no such thing as no deal. If nothing is agreed with the European Union, we will have a world trade deal. I remind noble Lords that, since the 1990s, UK exports to countries with which we trade under world trade terms have grown three times as fast as our exports to the EU single market. Can noble Lords imagine how that figure would multiply if the UK were free of the shackles and the ball and chain of the single market and the customs union?
With world trade there is no crashing out; there is only cashing in as we save £39 billion. Think what that could do for the people of this country. I urge the Prime Minister to abandon a plan the only achievement of which would be to befoul democracy’s name for a generation and plunge the Conservatives not just into outer darkness but so far into darkest space that they may never find their way back.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is frequently said that these days are exciting political times—and indeed of course they are. But I do not think that they are the most exciting. For me, that was the time of the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet empire. That is because we won. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the present. The atmosphere that surrounds this debate is melancholy. But this is probably the most febrile time that I can remember.
For me, two certainties frame our discussions this afternoon. The first is that a rejection of this deal now does not mean no deal and crashing out. There is time. Secondly, whatever may happen in the future, the present direction of travel will mean that we will end up in circumstances of permanent revolution for many years to come. The public do not like that and are not impressed by it—but, realistically, we are looking towards political turmoil for years and years. The problem we face in this regard is that the negotiations of the past two years are the template for the future mechanisms for doing the deals that will have to be done—unless of course we simply acquiesce and become a rule taker. This approach is an inherent consequence of the doctrine of taking back control, as it has been interpreted and has evolved in thinking in this country.
As we all know, not least because it was said by the Spanish Advocate General yesterday, EU membership does not mean that we have lost our sovereignty, otherwise we could not have served Article 50. Of course, as many noble Lords know, there are more sophisticated ways of getting what you want than traditional intergovernmentalism in certain circumstances—and getting what you want is what control is all about. In an interdependent world, you can do better by working through different mechanisms on various occasions.
Before the withdrawal negotiations began, we were promised that we would be in Berlin by Christmas. Where in fact are we? We are mired, battered and bruised and on the back foot in the Flanders mud, after the best part of three years, with a fair chance of not getting out for a number of years to come. This, by any measure, is a gloomy, unconstructive and nihilistic prospect.
Of course, it is true that in years gone by our own political institutions were good at criticising others and rather less good at evolving methods of decision-making and scrutiny in a changing world. In particular, we have been very slack as regards scrutinising the progress of European Union legislation and Governments of all persuasions have smuggled legislation on to the statute book via the EU system. But as an individual I am surprised that as a trading nation involved in all kinds of complicated trading relationships which have to be different from those in an introverted, subsistence economy, we have not fully recognised the need for a different kind of system of governance in an interdependent world of regulated economies.
The kind of political and administrative turmoil we are now in is not good, not least for business certainty. As I have said, it looks as if it is going to stretch out in front of us for some time to come. What we need is more stability and certainty, not less, but the deal we are looking at presents myriad loose ends that do not seem to be encouraging. On top of this but also part of it, the vast majority of economic commentators are saying that it is going to reduce national prosperity. Of course, without that we cannot have the healthcare systems we want and the defence capabilities that people want and expect.
Those who support the deal will say, “Ah well, in the long run it will work out in our favour”. All I can say is that I have always thought that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. As a financial analyst explained to me the other day, an unrealised gain is not a gain at all. Furthermore, we live in a world of regulated markets, which I personally believe is a good thing. I and many of my fellow citizens do not want to live in a kind of ersatz Singapore.
Of course, the heart of the Brexit project is the referendum, whose authority, it is true, has been tarnished and whose prospectuses were in general pretty bogus. As far as I can see, the case for Brexit goes back to the referendum, and I do not think that I have ever heard any Government suggest that on its own terms Brexit does the best for Britain. If the referendum had been constitutionally binding, that would probably have been the end of the matter. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, then President of the Supreme Court, pointed out in the Miller judgment, it is Parliament that is sovereign and so it is for Parliament to take the decisions; we cannot simply duck them. Being a Member of either House of Parliament is not simply a matter of resting one’s backside on green or red Benches in SW1. In the last analysis, our role is to guide the nation’s direction of travel, and in different ways we are Burkean representatives, not delegates. It is our perception of the national interest and our fiduciary duties which must guide us.
For my own part, I envy those who actually believe that these proposals are in the nation’s best interests; it is easy for them. But I do not. I also have a nightmare about basing our decision on the outcome of a referendum held nearly three years ago to justify doing the wrong thing now when that view may no longer command the support it enjoyed then. There has rightly been discussion both in this debate and more widely about the divisions that this has exposed in our country. I agree with that and I hate it, but these things cut in several directions. I consider leaving Europe on the basis of a vote taken nearly three years ago, if now three years later public sentiment has changed, would be the most divisive outcome that could possibly be imagined. It is one that should at all costs be avoided.
In my view, the Prime Minister’s deal—I concur with those who have said that it is a remarkable achievement in the circumstances—is not good enough. It diminishes us all in a variety of ways and so I cannot endorse it. As parliamentarians, we now collectively take a decision on whether or not the nation goes to war and soldiers put their lives on the line for their country. Against that background, I believe that it is craven not to say no to this deal if we believe that it is not good enough. If as a consequence I leave politics in a tumbrel, so be it—but that is an easy thing to say at the end of one’s career. But that is not the only part of the story, because there is another bit—what next? Quite simply, we all have to stop and think carefully and quickly. In reality, we have some time before rushing into anything. We must find an acceptable way of extricating ourselves from the fine mess which unfortunately we find ourselves in.
Lord Wasserman (Con)
My Lords, I hesitated before putting my name down to speak in this debate as I did not think I would have anything to say about Brexit that would not be said more convincingly by a large number of other noble Lords with far more experience of matters European than I. However, two events last week moved me to participate in the debate.
The first was a dinner I attended last weekend with a very successful British businessman who spent much of the evening trying to persuade me of the advantages of a no-deal Brexit. As he put it, with passion and conviction, “The economic welfare of our country depends mainly on our entrepreneurs, and the most successful entrepreneurs are those who know how to create or take advantage of disruption; that is, shattering old ways of doing things, old relationships and old ways of looking at the world. A no-deal Brexit”, he argued, “by causing disruption to established ways of doing things, would make it easier for our entrepreneurs to exploit new opportunities, and this in turn would make us all much richer”. I must have looked a bit sceptical when he made that claim because he went on to say, not in so many words, that our political leaders and especially our civil servants, even retired ones like me, were fundamentally risk-averse and therefore constitutionally unable to recognise new opportunities even when they were staring them in the face. I have to admit that his passion for a no-deal Brexit, particularly as he is someone who has clearly been very successful, left me wondering whether perhaps my 27 years as a civil servant really have left me incapable of seeing the advantages of freeing ourselves from the EU at the end of next March and leaving our people to fend for themselves and make the best of it.
However, on the way home from that dinner, I thought about a debate in your Lordships’ House in which I had spoken the previous day. It was a debate on violent crime, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. In that moving debate, one speaker after another for two and a half hours referred to the large numbers of young people who have been killed or seriously maimed on our streets in recent months, and how this tragic state of affairs was likely to continue for the foreseeable future. This, it was argued, was because the underlying causes of this violence are not amenable to a so-called quick fix and the resources which are devoted to tackling these problems are in short supply, whether in our police forces, our prisons or other parts of the criminal justice system. The same can be said for our schools, hospitals, social services and the provision made for youth unemployment.
We must not forget that while we in this House and those in another place are debating which form of Brexit would be best from the economic, constitutional or political point of view, there are young people out there on the streets of London along with other cities, towns and even villages who are daily becoming the victims of violent crime. Each day, almost two women are the victims of fatal domestic abuse, while each year well over 1,000 people die on our roads. I believe that these two issues, Brexit and the safety of our communities, cannot be considered in isolation. Indeed, the Brexit options we are debating today must also, or perhaps even first, be considered in terms of their effect on the security and safety of our communities, which after all is meant to be the first responsibility of government. It is for this reason that I believe that, given the present state of violent crime in our society and the shortage of resources to tackle it, it would be wrong—immoral might be a better word—for us to choose a Brexit option which means abandoning the agencies and institutions that our law enforcement organisations have developed over the past decade in collaboration with their European counterparts.
I do not have time to discuss the agencies and institutions in any detail this evening. I simply want to say that the agencies and systems such as Europol, Eurojust, the European arrest warrant, the information systems we all know about and the passenger name record have all been developed largely with our help and our leadership. Without them, our police forces would be far less effective and our communities would be far less safe. As a country, we cannot afford to choose a Brexit scenario that makes us less safe.
There has been much debate about the economic costs of the various forms of Brexit, the constitutional aspects and the political case for one or other option. However, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. Like him, I am concerned primarily about the cost in human lives, and here I do not think that there is room for argument. It is only the Prime Minister’s deal which specifies that the operational co-operation between our local law enforcement agencies and those of our European neighbours will continue largely as it does now for the whole of the implementation period. Further, it is only the Prime Minister’s political declaration which provides for:
“Comprehensive, close, balanced and reciprocal law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters with a view to delivering strong operational capabilities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences”.
Our law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies are very hard-pressed at the moment trying to keep up with the growth of violence and crime in our communities. This is not the time to deprive them of the tools which they have developed over the past decade in collaboration with their European colleagues. The families of those who will inevitably be the victims of violent crime over the next decade will never forgive that. We must not let them down.
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, the lights may not be going out all over Europe—not quite—but the doors are closing, and we must be realistic when we look at what is going on. It makes it more bitter if one believes, as I do, that the doors are closing partly because we are pushing them closed, and that we may trap our own fingers in them—and, what is worse, our children’s fingers. That is the background.
Another way in which doors are closing is that the option of a second referendum does not look like a great solution. That is partly because we have moved into a new digital age in which democracy is under severe pressure owing to the corruption of the democratic process by digital technologies. We must be realistic about this. A number of recent books have educated me—and, I am sure, many others—about these realities. For example, there is Martin Moore’s Democracy Hacked, and the book by Jonathan Taplin with the marvellous title drawn from Mr Zuckerberg’s thought, Move Fast and Break Things, whose subtitle is How Google, Facebook and Amazon Have Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy. That is where we are, and anybody who thinks a second referendum can provide a remedy needs to address the corruption of electoral politics by digital technologies that we have so far failed to address.
I shall say no more about that, on which I am not an expert, but I want to say a little about—as noble Lords will guess—the Irish border. There, again, we are not looking at the realities of the change going on. We have heard some notable speeches both today and on earlier occasions, including one from my noble friend Lord Bew, about customs and the movement of beasts, which I take to be a serious issue. Questions have been raised not just about which rules, but about who is enforcing the rules. That requires careful thought.
I want to say something about the movement of persons. There is plenty to be found in various documents, including the 24th report of your Lordships’ European Union Committee, which was published this morning, and government documents. There is plenty about the rights of EU citizens, but rather too little is said about the rights of British and Irish citizens, which are not just the generic rights of EU citizens, because they reflect the common travel area settlement of the 1920s. They are much more extensive rights, important to all of us. We have rights in one another’s countries more extensive than the Schengen rights that certain EU countries have agreed for their citizens in other countries—rights not merely to movement but to abode, to work and to vote. Irish citizens vote when they live here and British citizens vote when living in the Republic of Ireland.
It is unclear how well the Government’s proposals would protect those rights. I have repeatedly asked Ministers how those bundles of rights will be protected, and the answer I have typically received is, “People will have to show their passports”. That is all very well if someone possesses a passport, which not everybody does. It is probably a good answer if all we are concerned about is EU citizens who are not UK or Republic of Ireland citizens. They must have passports—that is how they get here. But we must think about people who may lack passports—and, what is more concerning, lack the means to acquire a passport, which will require, for example, knowledge of one’s place of birth, or some prior documentary evidence.
Not every family has the wherewithal to provide that information. People grow up in various circumstances. We do not have a system of ID cards. People live their lives without ID; they have not needed it, because they know they are British, or they know they are Irish, and they know they have the right to go to and fro across the Irish Sea by boat without passports, although planes are a different matter. When people suffer from a lack of clarity about their place of birth or their parentage—I think of the home for unwed mothers in Newry, County Down, where children were, let us say, distributed quite lavishly into various jurisdictions—or are not sure where they were registered, their access to passports is not automatic.
This morning on the BBC, many of your Lordships will have heard the story of a person born in Nigeria of British parents, whose father worked in the oil industry and who was registered as having been born there, but that registration was not accessible. That person spent nine years serving in the Armed Forces, but was denied a passport. This predicament should be familiar to us, because it is the Windrush predicament —the predicament of fellow citizens who are entitled but cannot demonstrate their entitlement.
Of course, this is not general: lots of people have a passport or know where their birth certificate can be found. But there are enough in the other case for that to need to be taken seriously. Denial of rights for lack of documentation is something the Government need to address. The complex family situations in which some people grow up mean that they cannot obtain the documentation, but they are citizens of these islands and they deserve to be protected by the common travel area arrangement, which is referenced but not, I think, thought through in the Government’s current documentation.
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
Here we go again, seeking, despite the presence of so many right reverend Prelates this afternoon, to struggle across the Jordan to Canaan’s side. Well, we are not there yet. I suspect that one thing on which we could develop a consensus pretty rapidly in this House, and also down the Corridor, is the proposition that we are in one awful political mess, which is in danger of turning into a constitutional mess, or shambles—all in pursuit of a deal that the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us will make the country poorer. This is not normally an objective in political life.
I have been reading Michael Palin’s excellent book on the “Erebus”, and I am struck by the similarity with a voyage taken by explorers in the middle of the 19th century in the Antarctic. One ship went from Cape Longing to Cape Disappointment, then on to Delusion Point, and finished up in Exasperation Bay. I have a certain sympathy with those Victorian travellers.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in an admirable speech, said that he did not think that many new points would be made in this debate. He then made one: he gets this year’s Christmas hamper for what he said about a free vote down the Corridor, which I think would be an extremely good idea. Even if not many new points have been made, we have come back again and again to some of the points we have made in this Chamber before, which actually made a lot of sense. Many of the best points we made were rejected with contumely by Brexit Ministers at the time. I cannot remember who they were—they come and go with some regularity—but if they had accepted the points, we would all be in a rather better position today.
The question of sovereignty and how you define it ran through a lot of those discussions and is of course still relevant. I have always thought of sovereignty as an extremely slippery concept. We got into some of the difficulties we are in now because of an ideological fixation with it, as though it were something written in Mosaic law. It encourages what psychiatrists call “cognitive dissonance”, in which people seek to see the relationship between facts or evidence and reality. In The March of Folly—a book on mistakes in American history, particularly the Vietnam War—Barbara Tuchman makes that exact point about mistakes in American domestic and foreign policy. We can see that such folly is possible on both sides of the Atlantic; there have been real errors in this country as well.
I want to pick up on what I thought were the two best speeches—certainly the two best metaphors—of the summer. The first was in a speech by my noble friend Lord Bridges, who always makes great sense. He used the metaphor of a “gangplank” again the other day when he spoke. We have not built a bridge to a place where we want to land, whether it is Delusion Bay or Exasperation Whatever, partly because we put the cart before the horse. We dealt with withdrawing from the European Union before we decided what we wanted to withdraw to—which seems to have led to some obvious consequences, which were referred to by the excellent Higher Education Minister in his resignation the other day. I suppose that the answer is contained in the political declaration. It is quite well written—as gangplanks go—but I have written this stuff in the past and put my name to it. Whenever I see the words “best endeavours”, I reach for a shotgun. It is full of strong nouns, strong adjectives and weak verbs—and we have all seen this sort of thing before.
Let us think about sovereignty in that context. Today I found myself agreeing once again with my noble friend Lord Howard—as I used to fairly regularly. He pointed out that you can withdraw from the European Union without anybody else’s agreement—that is sovereignty—but you cannot get out of the withdrawal agreement or the backstop without other people’s sovereignty, and that is called “taking back control”. It puzzles me very greatly. So this document, which promises us a future in which the landing point is determined largely by others, with 27 European Union countries having a veto over what we do, is one of several reasons for not supporting the deal.
The other speech I wanted to refer to was by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, which has gone viral. I am not sure that either he or I would have known until a few months ago what “going viral” means; I used to think that it was something to do with flu. I challenged him on this point and he rather agreed with me. He made a wonderful speech about taking his aunts to the cinema and them having to choose between seeing “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” and “Reservoir Dogs”. That is what we are offered here—only it is a double bill of “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” that we are threatened with. The mantra used to be, “No deal is better than a bad deal”. Today’s mantra is, “A bad deal is better than no deal”. To a considerable extent I suppose I can agree with that—but we should be able to achieve a better deal.
I realise that some of my noble friends will go through the Division Lobbies next week in support of the deal because they think that it is terrific. Some will probably go through the Lobbies out of loyalty to their party, which I understand, and because they are sympathetic to the Prime Minister, who has shown great determination even though I think that she has made the job more difficult for herself. They will go through the Lobbies comforting themselves, perhaps, that it could be a lot worse and that if we do not do a deal, the country will remain divided. I do not think that this deal will bring the country together and that if the deal goes through, my honourable and noble friends in the Brexit camp will, after all these years, come down the pavilion steps, slap us on the back and say, “May the best man win. It’s been a terrific fight. We’ll go along with whatever you’re doing”. We will argue about this for years. It will not bring us together, despite what St Matthew, St Paul and the most reverend Primate said—though not necessarily in that order.
We should not delude ourselves that this is the only deal in town and that the European Union will not do another one. It has made it clear that it will not do another deal if we do not change our red lines. It will do another deal if we change our red lines on leaving the single market and the customs union. It would be nice if the Minister underlines that point when he eventually responds to the debate.
Unfortunately, I find myself in a position where I will not be able to join my noble friends in the Division Lobby next week. I sympathise with the amendments in the House of Commons in the names of Hilary Benn and Dominic Grieve. I therefore sympathise very much with the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. This is a bad deal. It is bad for the future of this country and bad for our kids, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, said earlier—and because of that I will be in the Lobby with the noble Baroness next week.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I voted no on 5 June 1975. A convert of Jacques Delores, I come to this debate as an avid remainer. I have read part of every one of the 585 pages of what was the draft agreement of 14 November—that version was provided without a contents list, by the way, so it took a while to work out—the detail of which we did not know on 23 June 2016. I believe that the British people should have the right to vote now, knowing the details. I would caution and plead with the Minister to answer two of the speeches I have heard today when he winds up the debate: that of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, because the Government are in dead trouble on Northern Ireland, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton.
I could quote several articles in the withdrawal agreement where the UK is at a disadvantage, but I will not do so. I will cite just one. In fact, following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, it fits. Article 62.2, regarding “Ongoing judicial cooperation proceedings in criminal matters”, sets out clearly that access to SIENA, the Secure Information Exchange Network Application, will be very limited and costly for the UK. On environmental issues alone, the ECJ has taken the UK to court 34 times, and won 30 times, to give us a safer environment from air to water. In this deal, leaving means no independent external monitoring or enforcement.
There are still those who want to leave the EU without any arrangement and trade under so-called WTO rules. Although we are a WTO member, we do not currently trade on WTO terms. In Lords Select Committees on which I have served, the Government have talked about the UK taking imports from the EU without checks because we can trust the EU. If we did this under WTO terms, it would mean that imports from WTO members would have to be treated in exactly the same way. That would mean doing away with inspections and paperwork. We would lose control of imports, including dangerous products such as contaminated food, animal and plant products, dangerous electrical goods, unsafe cars and so on. The EU would treat the UK as any other WTO member. That would mean that UK exports of products of animal origin would have to enter the EU via a veterinary border inspection post. It just so happens that two of the UK’s main agricultural routes into the EU market are Calais and the Eurotunnel, neither of which has veterinary border inspection posts.
The Prime Minister is always going on about leaving being good for our money, our borders and our laws. Let us look at those points in reverse order, beginning with our laws. Between 1997 and 2013, I served in six government departments, including four years in MAFF and Defra and the Food Standards Agency. I was often at the end of complaints about EU food laws. However, not once in those 16 years did anyone suggest a specific law to abolish. When the coalition Government went through the balance of competences exercise—that is, UK versus EU—they buried over 30 reports because they all came down in favour of the status quo.
The second point is on our borders. Within the current EU rules, UK Governments, Labour and Tory, have had the power to restrict access by people from the EU to the UK under article 7 of the EU citizens’ rights directive. It is used by more than one EU member state. Why has our Home Office never used these restrictions? Instead, it just prattles on about freedom of movement. There are opportunities to take that action within the existing rules.
The third point is our money. I went to a Hacked Off lecture last week by the broadcaster James O’Brien. It was brilliant. He had an interesting tabloid-esque approach to this—that is not meant as an insult. The cost of the EU is 39p per person per day in the UK. That is taking a net contribution of £9.4 billion from a population of 66 million over the days in the year. It is exactly 39p per person per day. It is not massive in the way that the Prime Minister puts it across.
Finally, the Government’s finance papers on Brexit assume trade deals all over the world, including the food-poisoning capital of the western world, the United States of America, where food poisoning rates are 10 times the rate per head of population compared with the UK. I have often cautioned in this House and in committees that the attack on chlorine-washed chicken is an animal welfare issue rather than a food safety issue. “Why the need to wash?” is the question. The answer is easy—it is because of the high level of disease in production plants and chicken-killing plants.
However, new research published last week in a paper by the experts at the Society of Applied Microbiology, “Food Safety after Brexit”, discloses that,
“chlorinated water does not effectively disinfect even salad leaves and can even render harmful bacteria as undetectable in routine testing methods”.
That must be part of the explanation for the food health problems in the United States, which has major salmonella outbreaks. It has just recalled 6.5 million pounds of raw beef due to salmonella. Hundreds of people die each year from salmonella in the United States—450 in 2016. Over the 10 years from 2005 to 2015, nobody in England and Wales died from salmonella. The EU has protected us from this. That is what it is all about. It has protected our people and made them safer. The draft agreement does not do that. For that reason, it should be rejected. I rest my case.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, as so many of your Lordships have pointed out, the UK’s future success depends not so much on the withdrawal agreement, but on the outcomes of the negotiations still to come—negotiations based on a political declaration that is not legally binding. The future viability of key businesses and the livelihoods of the people they employ are left hanging on the series of “best endeavours”, “should” and “aims to” that punctuate this short document.
Among those sectors are the creative industries. In my short time in this House I have often stressed the importance of the creative industries to the UK’s success—a sector growing at twice the rate of the wider UK economy and singled out in the industrial strategy, with ambitious targets for jobs and growth. Yet this sector, like so many others, is at risk because its success depends on the ability to recruit and retain key talent from the EU. In the most economically productive areas, domestic skills gaps mean that 30% of staff are recruited from the EU, with 17 creative occupations on the tier 2 shortage occupation list. Even if we started today, we would not be able to train up a domestic workforce to fill those roles by 2021.
Nothing is agreed, as we have been told, until everything is agreed. For many parts of the economy, nothing is yet agreed. The withdrawal agreement covers only the terms of separation, the political declaration is no more than its title claims, and we now know that the all-important White Paper on immigration will not be published any time soon.
To the creative and many other sectors, the future position on immigration is of as much significance in this debate as the documents named in the Motions before us today. The Migration Observatory at Oxford University reports that the UK economy is dependent on between 3.6 million and 3.8 million workers from the EU—roles that we will still require in April and 21 months later. Yet over two-fifths of these workers are employed in lower-paid but vital occupations, for instance, in health and social care—roles that will not meet an anticipated £30,000 salary threshold. Government-commissioned forecasts predict that every year, a further 1.5 million jobs will open up for workers new to the labour market—around 725,000 of them medium and low-skilled jobs.
Where exactly will these workers come from? The Office for National Statistics projects that between 700,000 and 900,000 young people will turn 18 every year between now and 2030. Is our aspiration that every one of them will occupy medium and low-skilled roles? This is hardly the “race to the top” that was promised in the Government’s 2017 plan to improve social mobility through education.
The current tier 1 and tier 2 system has been effective in supplying high-skilled workers from non-EEA countries, but it has worked as part of a migration landscape that provides access to a steady supply of medium and low-skilled workers through our EU membership. A salary-based immigration system will block access to the workforce the UK economy needs and will be severely damaging to our creative industries, which rely not just on established talent but the bright talents of the future, for whom an annual income of £30,000 is the stuff of dreams. Salary levels are not a proxy for skills.
The political declaration says nothing about freelance workers, who make up 15% of the overall workforce and 35% of the creative sector. A freelance visa, as proposed by the Creative Industries Federation, would ensure continued access to skilled, short of exceptional, freelancers who are required on an occasional basis, often at short notice, and provide vital flexibility, especially to small businesses.
Even in the event of an orderly Brexit, there is a real risk that UK employers will not have access to the workforce they need, in either the short or medium term. No deal would “bring down the shutters overnight”, to quote the chief executive of London First. Without assurances that our future immigration system will reflect the economy’s need for a broader range of skills and salaries, the UK’s future prosperity is at risk.
Over the last two years, we have seen an unswerving determination to end freedom of movement on the basis that this is the will of the people. This continues to baffle many of us, not least the Migration Advisory Committee, which has noted that migration flows are now falling sharply and the UK may find itself in the position of ending free movement just as public concern falls about the migration flows that result from it.
The rhetoric is getting in the way of the facts, and it is obscuring an obvious truth: freedom of movement is not just about attracting talent to the UK, important as that is. It is about the rights of future generations to enjoy the freedoms we have all taken for granted—to experience other cultures, to learn and work in diverse communities and places, and to enjoy, as we have, the enriching opportunities of a life lived without borders.
With so much uncertainty, Members in the elected Chamber face not so much a meaningful vote as a terrifying hand of pontoon, gambling, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, pointed out, on our futures. Stick with the deal on the table, despite it suiting no one, or twist and see what the next deal brings, but, in doing so, take the risk of leaving without a deal—an option no one believes is in the best interests of the UK.
On the advice of the ECJ’s advocate-general, there is a third choice. I have listened hard to other noble Lords who argue that a further referendum would be a betrayal of democracy. However, it seems to me that the betrayal happened over two years ago, when dubious, if not illegal, practices undermined a democratic process, and the false claims that underpinned the referendum meant that a bright future outside the EU was, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out, grossly mis-sold. All the evidence shows that pressing on, with or without a deal, will leave us in a worse position than we currently enjoy.
The decision rightly belongs to Members of the other place. Given all this, I believe that they would be justified in choosing that third option. Noble Lords have put forward possible ways in which this might play out, including taking the question back to the public and particularly to the next generation, on whom this decision will have the most impact. It is clear that Parliament now needs to take back control and press pause on the basis that pushing on cannot be the best way to ensure the future success of the UK, or to bring together our divided nation.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, what distresses me most about the Brexit debate is the defeatism and pessimism that run through it. It is for me a very un-British thing—the very opposite of what I have always admired about this country. We have behaved as if we were defeated from the start. If I have heard it once, I have heard it 100 times: “The people did not know what they were talking about or voting for”. “We are bound to be overwhelmed by a union of 27 nations”. “After over 40 years of membership, it is all too difficult to disentangle”. These are the beliefs of those who refuse to accept the referendum result in defiance of our duty to implement it, as David Cameron and the leader of the Opposition pledged at the time. These are the beliefs that propel the demand for a second referendum—a referendum of unknown outcome that would prolong uncertainty and deepen still further the rift in our society. I know that some of your Lordships say that it is unfair that young people did not vote, but there will always be young people. Of the next referendum, we could say that the next generation two years down the line also did not vote. It would be a national catastrophe.
I regret to say that such defeatism and lack of self-confidence have contaminated the agreement itself. They have been the worm in the apple of negotiation. It is no wonder that it is so difficult for some people to support the withdrawal agreement and political declaration. They fall far short of the mandate given to the Government and Parliament by the referendum result. As many here have pointed out, the worst thing about the agreement is the open-ended backstop; the Attorney-General has confirmed it. No self-respecting nation, independent for a thousand years, can or should accept indefinite subordination to a foreign authority.
The Government and the EU tell us to take the deal because it is the only one on offer, but there is always another one on offer if we are more self-confident, recognise the EU’s manifest weaknesses and deploy the sticks and carrots of skilful negotiation. To say that it is impossible before even trying is sheer defeatism. We are told that no one has come up with an alternative, but the landscape is littered with alternatives—they have just not been entertained by the Government. Do you know what worries me most? It is that, if we approve this deal, the 17.4 million people who voted to leave will feel that they have been cheated. I dread to think what their reaction will be. We have only to look across the channel at the violent demonstrations all over France to see what happens when the political class and its leadership lose touch with the people. Do not think that it cannot happen in this country. We must obtain an end date for our release from the backstop or we must pursue another course. With political will there is still time.
Incidentally, there is no such thing as “no deal”; there is a spectrum of potential deals. Even a bare-bones agreement, under WTO rules, does not deserve to be called “crashing out”. Of course, there will be a period of adjustment, but it is worth paying the price if we safeguard our sovereignty. The British are the most adaptable people. You need only to go to Germany, where I lived for seven years, or to France, of which I hold a passport, to realise how flexible and adaptable this country is by contrast. This is the moment for our country to rise up from its defensive crouch and to dig deep into its history. It is time to stiffen the sinews in defence of our nation’s sovereignty.
We can look forward to a new era of sovereignty and alliance with our many friends around the globe, including in Europe. Leaving the European Union does not make us any less European. I am a European; I am the symbol of one. I firmly believe that we can do better for our country. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, spoke about a French person living in his constituency who has decided to leave the UK because of Brexit. Well, I say to her, “Good luck!” I wager that she will soon be back when she has seen that in France unemployment is high and the country is in a complete mess. I know of French people who have been and are already back in the UK.
We should stop re-running the referendum; we should stop the negativity. People and businesses in this country want closure. We should not be afraid. We should believe in ourselves. Even if it comes to what people call a “no deal”, we can handle it.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I shall talk about free movement. I want to do so in part because the ending of free movement “once and for all”, as the Prime Minister puts it, is arguably the most emphatic and oft-repeated point that she has made in trying to sell her deal to the country. Yet in doing so the Prime Minister commits a sin of omission. Her line about ending free movement once and for all is intended to play not to the whole country but to a specific and, up to now, less quiet audience. What she omits to draw attention to is the movement of people in the other direction, into the rest of Europe, because any curbs to movement that we place on those coming into this country will have to be reciprocated, and the stronger her rhetoric on curbing immigration, the stronger it should be for any British person moving the other way. Of course, that cannot be part of her selling pitch, yet the effect will be severe limitations placed on such movement, in particular in our service industries, including the creative sector which the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has already referred to, as well as severe limitations on opportunities for young people to travel, work and study in Europe.
Many service industries—often ignored in favour of conventional goods despite being 80% of our economy, with 46% of service exports going to Europe—depend inherently on movement of workers within Europe, not just to one country but across multiple borders. That will affect Brits, both freelance and employees, living not just in the UK but abroad. Whatever rights and security are afforded to them in their country of residence—and Europeans living within the UK are far from being reassured—those freelancers and employees may find themselves effectively landlocked and in danger of losing their livelihoods.
Both short and longer-term jobs are threatened. I want to give some examples. The Incorporated Society of Musicians states bluntly that the Government’s deal represents a serious threat to the British music industry, which is worth £4.5 billion a year to the British economy, and that the end of free movement would mean significant new barriers for musicians seeking touring work in the EU.
Jayne Hamilton, a British software developer based in the UK, said in a letter to the New European earlier this year that:
“I will lose two-thirds of my livelihood at the very least because of Brexit. While companies export products, we freelancers export ourselves. The freedom of movement and work in the single market is vital for us … It has taken me over 12 years to build up my network and clients. Many of them are in Germany and the Netherlands. My languages in addition to technical skills often secure me a contract and allow me to fend off tough competition … agencies usually need freelance candidates fast, sometimes within days … The great irony is that British freelancers often gain niche skills on projects in the EU which they can deploy on projects back home”.
We are to understand that the Government favour what they term a “mobility partnership”. Yet, outside the single market, even when movement will be possible, the inevitable lack of flexibility, the red tape and the costs will always mean that EU workers will have an edge in competition which should not be underestimated. Anything less than what EU citizens have will be, in comparison, an immobility partnership. The only mobility partnership worth considering is the partnership we now have, not just for competition but for co-operation.
The effects of an anticipated loss of free movement have already been felt. Where they can, many creatives are moving abroad. We heard yesterday that, remarkably, over 3,000 British tech jobs have relocated to Brussels. We heard last year that 40% of the British video gaming industry is thinking of relocating. I have heard no change to that estimate. The pressures being placed on our British and European creative talent by the threat of Brexit is already a scandal.
It has been instructive to listen to the Prime Minister’s response to the recent questioning by Pete Wishart and others on the loss of opportunities for young people of all classes to travel, work and study in Europe if this deal is accepted. The response is, once again, as always, a selective line: free movement is ending. The Prime Minister’s refusal to engage with these concerns is deeply insulting to the young people of this country. For many young Europeans, including British people, free movement is a principle in itself. More than that, it is the right to explore at will your continent, a right that will be lost if we accept this deal. Will the UK be involved in the new iteration of Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe? We get no inkling from the political declaration. We know that Switzerland lost full access to Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 when it voted to restrict EU migration, since partly reversed. It is entirely logical that the same thing will happen to the UK if this deal is accepted. The resignation of Universities and Science Minister Sam Gyimah, even though he was not a Cabinet Minister, was both significant and heartfelt.
Free movement is a two-way street. What is most heartbreaking is the willingness of Brexiteers, for whatever reason, to betray the opportunities of their fellow citizens. Some who have spoken today are remainers who have accepted the 2016 referendum. I am a remainer who in the last two years has become even more convinced by the arguments to remain than I was then. Either Parliament stops Brexit or we have a people’s vote. If the latter is the case, I hope that the country takes a decision to reverse the first referendum and remain within the EU.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I would also like to pay tribute to the Prime Minister as someone whom I have known for more than 20 years and whom I admire for her stamina, her resilience and her self-belief. No one can claim greater ownership of the process, the detail or, indeed, the outcome of the Brexit negotiations than the Prime Minister. No one deserves greater credit for this deal.
That is why there is nothing that I would rather be able to do than stand here today and say that I support this withdrawal agreement. How much easier it would be to say that I was convinced by the arguments, persuaded by the appeals to loyalty and resolved to ignore the overwhelming evidence that this is such a bad deal that it is worse than the deal on World Trade Organization terms. I would love to be able to reject the advice of successful British entrepreneurs, like the inventor Sir James Dyson; Tim Martin, founder of the Wetherspoon pub chain; and the hotelier Sir Rocco Forte. All have the deal-clinching confidence to believe that a clean, global Brexit on the WTO terms on which most of the world trades would be a better deal than this deal.
When I worked for various charities over a period of almost 20 years, I fought hard to protect their independence from government, in the sure knowledge that it underpinned their credibility in the media, in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. That the Governor of the Bank of England should have so compromised its independence totally undermines the credibility of his predictions of Brexit Armageddon, based on factors which its former Governor, the noble Lord, Lord King, has argued are not plausible. I agree with him when he says:
“It saddens me to see the Bank of England unnecessarily drawn into this project”.
The former Governor is surely right because that is, ultimately, what this is all about: the project that is ever closer political union with the EU. It is exactly what the British people voted to leave in the 2016 referendum. Yet this deal would see us trapped and with less control than if the country had actually voted to remain.
It reminds me of a cross-party trip to Berlin which I went on last year, when a British parliamentarian—who shall remain nameless and, I should add, is not from your Lordships’ House—told our counterparts from the Bundestag, “I hope you give us a good hiding so that we realise the mistake that we have made”. I think the EU Commission might have been listening, because it has done exactly that.
Just consider the £39 billion from us to them—for what? It was for a backstop, the so-called insurance policy which not only insures them against our having a competitive advantage but, for good measure, treats a part of the UK differently from the rest and, incredibly, would be indefinite. As the Attorney-General has advised, there is no unilateral right of termination. Yet we understand that the backstop was “a risk worth taking” because both sides have agreed in the deal to use their “best endeavours” to find a way out of the arrangement as soon as possible. With all due respect, a quick glance at the Attorney-General’s legal advice to the Prime Minister shows that this deal is fraught with risk.
As my noble friend Lord Patten of Barnes, who is not in his place, intimated earlier, much has been made of the term “best endeavours”, as if somehow the EU and UK can resolve their differences by having a group hug—without my noble friend’s shotgun, I imagine. If that does not work, we can always tell teacher at the independent arbitration panel, in the hope that they side with us eventually and that the ECJ will look on benignly and with complete neutrality. All I can say is: “Good luck with that. I am sure it will go really well!”.
As a Member of the other place explained a few hours ago, “best endeavours” is not a legal obligation. The EU is not obliged to compromise its own interests, so why should we trust the EU to stop endeavouring to do its best to do us down—not because it hates us but because it is acting, as it has always done, in the national interest of the political project that is the European Union? Even if we choose to indulge in such wilful delusion, the people out there know that not only is that not the same thing as our national interest but in some areas it runs wholly contrary to it. Yet this deal presupposes that, after two years of interminable negotiations, we should suddenly trust the EU to respect our national interest after we have handed it £39 billion. Why?
I will close on this point. My noble friend Lady Meyer, in her superb speech, referred to defeatism. This defeatist deal is not about a compromise; it is about being totally compromised. Of course I share the Prime Minister’s desire to bring the country back together. Who does not? But for us to mouth meaningless mantras which conceal the truth, foment distrust and dishonour the majority result of the 2016 referendum is a recipe not for healing but for prolonged uncertainty and deeper division.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, to coin a phrase, a week in politics is a long time. Let us project our thoughts to Wednesday of next week. Who knows what the political landscape will be? Will the Prime Minister still be there, or will she sink with her flagship deal? Will rival factions be putting forward alternatives at that time?
Clearly, there has been a great problem in trying to bring together two conflicting considerations. First, almost all economic forecasts suggest that we will be less prosperous outside the EU than if we stayed as full members. Indeed, we already see a weak sterling, business closures, lack of investment in the UK and, since the referendum, an outflow from UK equity funds of $20.6 billion. The bright new deals promised by Brexiteers appear increasingly to be but a mirage. Why should new trading partners give us a better deal than the EU, with its much greater clout? It is also likely that our weight in world affairs will be reduced as we are largely on our own. On this basis, the deal and the accompanying political declaration are essentially essays in damage limitation.
However, the second consideration is also cogent. These considerations have to be balanced by the fact of the referendum result—a small but decisive majority in favour of Brexit—even if there appears within that group no majority for a hard or soft Brexit, when by contrast the remain vote is clear. However, that referendum was only a snapshot in time. The latest YouGov poll published in today’s Times shows that 49%, as against 38%, of our people believe that to leave was a mistake.
The deal, I concede, was an honest attempt by the Prime Minister to square the circle, to recognise the importance of a close relationship with our major trading partner while satisfying a referendum majority. But the result is that the context in our country today is of almost total political disarray on the issue, reflected in the votes in Parliament last night and in the Cabinet. Last week, the Daily Mail trumpeted the astonishing front-page exclusive—the revelation that a Cabinet Minister, Mrs Leadsom, was intending to support the Prime Minister. That is surely an interesting vignette on the depth of our political crisis. Our system is traditionally meant to provide stability, but historians will be hard-pressed to find any precedent for the turmoil. Shelley’s “England in 1819” comes to mind.
Clearly, the referendum showed great fissures in our body politic; that deep malaise is not the fault of the Prime Minister, but she has contributed to it by her actions and lack of actions. I see her as a decent and principled patriot who inherited from her predecessor a poisoned chalice and leads an impossible party with less support than that enjoyed by John Major at the time of the Maastricht treaty. She called a general election prematurely and became dependent on Northern Irish unionists for her majority. Who would have thought that there was in Northern Ireland a majority for remain? It is not what we hear from our Ulster colleagues in this Parliament. She was forced to give a massive sum to the DUP; now that it is a major threat to her, will she be asking for our money back? She has blown equally hot and cold on the European Union to different audiences. She has largely ignored the Cabinet in negotiations and excited the expectations of the Brexiteers, who now feel betrayed. She attempted to divide the EU, but it remained remarkably united.
A key mistake in the negotiations was to start by announcing thick red lines which she has been forced, over the negotiations, to dilute. An example, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned, was to demonise the CJEU; as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed out, its judgments have been much to our advantage. This entailed a rejection of the customs union, the single market and the adoption of policies on aviation, chemicals and dispute resolution, which the Government now seek to soften. Paragraph 26 of the Explainer for the Political Declaration states:
“The UK and the EU will explore the possibility of cooperation between UK authorities and EU agencies”.
Paragraph 27 states:
“The UK will also consider aligning with EU rules in relevant areas”.
So that is clear.
Thus, on the red lines, the Prime Minister was bound by fetters of her own making. She allowed internal party opponents to make the running without forcing them to produce their alternatives. She is now trying to sell the only deal in town; it is as if with one leap we are free, but we will be bound by equivalence frameworks and level playing fields. The deal is, of course, a compromise, an orphan which neither side wishes to adopt. She now faces a parliamentary gridlock; there is no majority in Parliament for this deal or indeed for any other, and the likelihood is that next Tuesday the deal will be rejected.
The Prime Minister can read the economic forecasts; she can see that in the international field we risk being relegated to a lower division. She was wrong-footed in a recent Q&A phone-in when asked whether her deal was better than staying in the EU. The response of the Brexiteers and their cheerleaders is analogous to that of President Trump to the forecasts of climate change: “We know better than those so-called experts whose Project Hysteria now succeeds Project Fear”.
Faced with parliamentary gridlock and a possible attempt to restart negotiations, the EU could, of course, marginally tweak the deal, but would that produce agreement? Leaving aside the disaster of no deal, the only serious alternative is a people’s vote. Yes, it would be full of uncertainties and the electorate might feel cheated, but they did not vote for a lower standard of living and may indeed feel cheated because of that. People did not vote to be decision-takers. The option is the status quo or this deal. There is a chance of escaping from the massive misjudgment against our national interest three years ago, and we should take it.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, as some noble Lords may know, I supported the campaign to leave the European Union with my vote and also with my finances—and I have the inheritance tax bill from HMRC to prove it. Despite the political and economic turmoil we are in, and the irritation of having to pay twice to help level the playing field, given that the remain-supporting Government pumped more than £9 million into their cause, I am an unrepentant leaver, with no regrets.
Along with many other Brexiteers, I do not say that capriciously or for cavalier reasons but because I am a democrat who is primarily and viscerally driven by the desire to regain our sovereignty. This prime motivation means that I cannot support the deal on offer, however naive, ideological or downright inflexible that makes me appear.
Flexibility, as it is currently understood, is not an unlimited good. Professor Richard Sennett describes how the meaning of flexibility has fundamentally changed. Originally it was derived from the observation that, though a tree may bend in the wind, its branches spring back to their original position. Flexibility denoted,
“the tree’s capacity both to yield and to recover, both the testing and the restoration of its form”.
The shape of the tree, its identity and identifiability as a tree are unchanged.
Today, he says, flexibility means the ability to move rapidly from one shape to another—to be always in flux and to have no essential shape at all. The tree to which I am referring is the structure of the United Kingdom and the sovereignty of our Parliament. The deal on offer, which we are strenuously told is a reasonable compromise requiring a flexible approach, requires us to morph into something that we are not. Its shape shifts the union of nations and makes a mockery of our sovereignty.
Under the proposed withdrawal agreement Bill, the United Kingdom will have no representation in the European Council, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. We will have no representation in the bodies which make laws that will continue directly to affect us. No one who actually makes or implements these laws will be accountable to us, and the names of those making and implementing those decisions will be unknown. It will mean government without the consent of those to be governed—yet as Abraham Lincoln said in his Nebraska speech in 1854:
“No man is good enough to govern another man, without that other’s consent”.
Paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence, to secure every human being’s inalienable rights, which include liberty, Governments are instituted, and they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. This has always been the problem with the European Union. It is why so many in this country chose to leave and why others across the land mass it controls are not enamoured with it. Who in this country, or in any of the other 27 countries, voted for Juncker, Tusk —or, of course, Selmayr or Barnier? Yet they wield disproportionate power over our everyday lives and will continue to do so under this draft agreement, despite the 2016 referendum result.
I fear that too many view this in the short term, just wanting a fix so that we can move on. In reality, it is a straitjacket that will ferment Europhobic division over the long term. It would be far better to adopt the spirit of adventure and freedom that has enabled us to walk a narrow path in the past and take the short-term pain that leaving on World Trade Organization terms might entail. For this reason, the Labour Motion, which emphatically rejects a WTO outcome regardless of the actual final deal, should itself be emphatically rejected.
Finally, the argument that we are not ready for what is otherwise called a no-deal exit is indefensible. A Government who have not prepared for a no-deal scenario have not acted responsibly, given the oft-repeated mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal. Somewhere along the line, this script was rewritten, and now we are being told that a bad deal is better than no deal. We must hold our nerve, as my noble friend Lady Meyer encouraged us to do just now, and we must push back, not just against this rewrite but against the flexible revision of democracy—otherwise it will shapeshift into something no longer identifiable as democracy. That is a divisive and unresolved inheritance that we do not want to pass on to future generations.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, it was interesting to listen to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. His speech confirmed to me why I was right to vote remain.
We have been reminded many times in this debate that the country voted for Brexit in 2016. It certainly voted to leave the European Union, but it did not at the time establish a clear sense of what that actually meant. The Norway option, a Norway-plus option, a Norway-plus-plus option, a Canada-style free-trade agreement, a relationship such as that which Switzerland has with the EU: all of these were said to be options, as were claims by some supporters of Brexit that we might get special access to the single market and stay in a customs union if we left.
We were promised that our trading with the EU would be settled quickly: it has not been. We were told that trade deals with the rest of the world would be easy: they have not been. I have never understood why such trade deals are thought to be in our interest, when much of the evidence suggests that it is the other country that will gain more from them, sometimes disrupting British production. Anyway, we have large numbers of trade deals already from our membership of the EU. Would it not be better just to keep those as a member of the EU and benefit as a member when other trade deals are negotiated by the EU?
The Government’s own analysis admits that trade deals outside the EU will add little to GDP, yet a no deal could mean a 9% hit to our GDP. No deal would be a disaster. The question we need to address is: can we rely on the result of a referendum held two and a half years ago when the outcome two and a half years later is very different from what was claimed it would be by leave campaigners? I submit that another referendum would not be a betrayal, as the Prime Minister has described it, now that the destination has become clearer. People surely must have the right to assess the evidence and to make a final decision, so I will be supporting the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. No deal would damage our currency, cause rising unemployment and push up interest rates. This is not Project Fear: both the Government and the Bank of England have confirmed that any Brexit outcome will make us poorer. People did not vote to become poorer and were never told they would be poorer by the leave campaign.
The Prime Minister describes her deal as promising a brighter future. Her letter to the nation adds a claim that it is a deal,
“that works for our whole country and all of our people”.
It does not. It is a serious blunder that will impact on millions of low-income families. The Prime Minister’s letter to the nation also said that she has worked to,
“deliver a Brexit deal that works for every part of our country—for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”.
Crucially, the English regions are simply forgotten in this, yet more than £400 million has been injected into the north-east of England, where I live, through the current round of European structural funds. This funding is due to end in 2020, yet we already know that transition could be extended beyond 2020. Without clear decisions well in advance, regional growth and development will be harmed. Why have the Government failed so comprehensively to ensure that the money we would expect from the EU in structural funding if we stayed in will be available for the poorer English regions after 2020?
With regard to the risks for the north-east economy in this withdrawal agreement, I remind the House that 4,540 north-east businesses traded with the EU in 2017, totalling 57% of north-east regional trade, compared with 40% nationally. The EU is a vital export market for the north-east of England, and the single market is a crucial part of that.
I am advised now that there are cases of businesses already putting their no-deal plans into place, either relocating or reducing staff. In addition, some smaller companies cannot deal with some of the pressures needed for Brexit. For example, it is often cited that business may need to stockpile 25% more to cope with transition—but, with limited warehousing and pressured profit margins, some businesses do not have the resources to raise their capacity. There are examples of some north-east companies being handed supply contracts saying that if the deal is unfavourable, they may have to move to the EU or else have their contracts terminated. Many companies are concerned about their role in a supply chain: if a large manufacturer pulls out, it could cause a domino effect right down the chain, impacting on many businesses.
Uncertainty has also deterred certain businesses in the north-east from bidding for continental contracts. Currency risk is one reason I give as an example. Some businesses have bid for European contracts but have been told that it was too much of a risk to take them on, and that has been attributed to uncertainty. I contend that the north-east of England will be poorer outside the EU. The north-east will be outside the single market, making it harder for our exporters to the EU to do business. We will see more capital investment that we might have attracted to the north-east going to other parts of the EU that are inside the single market, because we are outside it. No deal would also impact hard on university research and disrupt EU exchange programmes.
I repeat that all versions of Brexit will make us poorer. I have concluded that we need to ask the British people whether they still want to leave the EU now that they know the cost of Brexit or whether they prefer to stay in, with all the advantages of the customs union, the single market and membership of European programmes. I accept that this would require a people’s vote, and I will support that.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, it appears that we will have one voting opportunity to express the House’s opinion on the draft agreement and the political declaration, and that is on the Motion expressing regret by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I will therefore address my remarks to that Motion. I regard it as a curate’s egg. I agree with the first two parts of the Motion. The first says,
“it is for the House of Commons to determine the matter”.
I agree with that. The second says,
“a no deal outcome to negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union must be emphatically rejected”.
I agree with that also, and I believe that a great majority in both Houses, although not everyone, agrees with both of those propositions. The third part of the Motion regrets that the withdrawal agreement and political declaration negotiated by the Government,
“would do grave damage to the future economic prosperity, internal security and global influence of the United Kingdom”.
I agree that the consequences of the UK leaving the EU will be to damage our future prosperity, security and global influence, but I do not agree that these damaging consequences are due to the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. They are due to the UK’s decision to leave the EU.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and others have said, there is of course still much to play for. Many of the points that have been made—for example, in favour of a Norway arrangement—fall within the negotiations on the future relationship. So there is still much to negotiate about, but it is the withdrawal agreement on which we have to make an immediate decision.
The agreement is neither better nor worse than I expected from the outset of the negotiations, and I note that none of those in favour of our leaving the EU has proposed an alternative departure agreement that would have had any chance of acceptance by the EU, nor are they doing so now. If the UK is to leave the EU, a departure agreement along the lines proposed by the Government and agreed with the EU is, in my view, the inevitable consequence. It is much better than no deal. It is worse than the alternative of staying within the EU, but that is not the choice before us in this debate. Given the choice between this departure agreement and no deal, I cannot in good conscience put my name to regretting the agreement and political declaration.
So in the last few days I have felt that I am in a dilemma, and I know that some other Members of the House have shared it. I want to express my support for the first two legs of the Opposition’s Motion, but I could not do so except by also voting for the third leg, with which I do not agree. So I have tabled an amendment, which will be on the Order Paper tomorrow, to delete the third leg of the Opposition’s Motion so that I and others in the House have the chance to support the first two legs of the Motion without supporting the third.
I should explain briefly why I do not want to vote for the third leg of the Opposition’s Motion. First, for reasons that I explained in our debate on the departure agreement a week or so ago, I think the objections to this departure agreement have been greatly overstated. Secondly, I doubt whether the Government, or for that matter the Opposition, could have done better. Thirdly, I see no realistic prospect of a substantially better departure agreement now being negotiated, so I think it pointless to condemn this one unless the purpose is simply to increase the Government’s difficulties, and I do not regard that as being in the national interest.
Having irritated the Leader of the Opposition today, I will end by irritating the Liberal Democrats. If they had been drafting this Motion, I feel confident that what they would have regretted would have been the Government’s decision to press ahead with Brexit without giving the British people the opportunity to express an informed opinion. I would have supported such a Motion, but of course they could not get the Labour Party’s support for a Motion on those terms. So they have compromised in the interests of opposition solidarity, but in compromising they have lost me on this occasion.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on an excellent speech that will provide a lot of food for thought for many of our colleagues and beyond. Speaking in this Chamber after the Brexit referendum vote, I urged the Government not to let down the people who earn their livelihoods in our fishing industry and not to allow their interests to be bargained away in future negotiations with the EU. Having watched developments since then, I am sure that the Prime Minister has no intention of doing so, but it is clear that the way ahead in this area will be complex and difficult, and a great deal of tough deal-making lies in front of us.
Fishing may be a small industry—it contributes 0.5% to our GDP, and in 2016 the UK fishing fleet was estimated to employ 11,757 people—but big promises were made and continue to be made by the Government about the benefits that will accrue to our fishing communities when, as part of Brexit, we leave the common fisheries policy and are able to negotiate catch quotas and access to our waters as an independent coastal state. Despite its relatively small economic clout, I believe that the fishing industry and the coastal communities where it is embedded hold a very special place in British hearts. Their fate has become totemic, as the fraught negotiating process in Brussels has continued. It is certainly true in Scotland, where 65% of the British catch is landed. It has now become painfully clear that the Government will have to remain both resolute and vigilant to withstand EU attempts to muddy the waters when talks on a future trade deal get under way. Indeed, it now seems quite possible that fishing may provide the first trial of strength.
To make matters more complicated, we must also remember that our fishing industry is not homogenous with uniform requirements. While those who own and crew trawlers on the east coast of Scotland want access to EU markets for much of their catch, they also want new arrangements which will increase their quotas, and keep foreign fleets further at bay. Meanwhile, the major priority for those who take their lucrative catch of shellfish mainly off the west coast is swift and untrammelled entry to EU markets.
The potential stumbling block is linkage. The Government are well aware of this, and the Prime Minister—who has been pressed hard by her Scottish Tory colleagues—has said she is determined to keep future negotiations on fishing catch quotas in our waters from the bargaining over a future trade deal. However, the French President has insisted that the two issues should be linked, and without UK concessions, a trade deal will become slow to achieve. In a robust response, the Prime Minister has rightly made it clear that if a fair deal on fishing rights cannot be agreed by the end of 2020, the default position would be that French and other EU boats would be banned from British waters.
The withdrawal agreement, and the political declaration, give no guarantees to the fishing industry about its future. The declaration only states that the UK and the EU should establish a “new fisheries agreement”, preferably by July 2020. The Government insist that they have managed to resist any written reference to a link between access to our waters and the terms of a future trade deal. Ominously, a separate statement by EU leaders states that one of their priorities is a fisheries agreement which builds on,
“existing reciprocal access and quota shares”.
I must stress how severely trust and confidence in the UK Government will be damaged in Scotland if the fishing industry is not clearly seen to benefit from the UK leaving the common fisheries policy. Predictably, the Scottish nationalists are already chanting, almost like a doom-laden Greek chorus, that there will be a sell-out of fishing interests by the United Kingdom Government. The SNP, which wants to use Brexit to further its plan to break up the United Kingdom, must believe that an endless mantra of “sell-out” will divert attention from its own weak and untenable position on this matter. I repeat the words in Hansard of 26 March 2018, when the Prime Minister answered the speech of the parliamentary leader of the SNP in the other place. She said emphatically:
“We will be leaving the common fisheries policy and taking back control of our waters. But it is a bit rich for him to make those comments, given that he belongs to a party that wants to stay in the CFP in perpetuity”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/3/18; col. 529.]
The only sell-out of our fishing industry which could take place would be as a result of the SNP’s obsession with independence, which has been accompanied by its plan to take Scotland back into the common fisheries policy. That is not what the British fishing industry wants. Theirs is an extremely good and deserving cause, and I sincerely hope and believe that it will be given priority by our Government in due course.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, my first reaction when news of the Government’s deal seeped out three weeks ago was one of relief. The Prime Minister had pulled off what had seemed impossible—an agreement broadly consistent with her so-called red lines, which provided for a backstop on the border between the Republic and the north of Ireland, and which was acceptable to the EU. On top of that, it appeared to reflect public opinion, providing more control over our borders while keeping us economically close to our main trading partner. For a brief moment, I thought the tedious debate about Brexit and its associated negotiations would come to an end, and at last the Government could turn their attention to more pressing priorities around improving the UK’s economic performance.
However, as with all legal contracts, it is important to study the fine print. In this case, the six hundred pages of legal text, supplemented by a 26-page declaration, make somewhat disappointing reading. The more I have read the document, the clearer it is that the EU 27 have achieved all their objectives, while for the UK success is again deferred, kicked down the road into the next phase of endless negotiations.
The political declaration, long on adjectives but short on substance, is all things to all people. It could lead to any destination, which may be no bad thing. Most importantly, the EU 27 have no incentive to reach a speedy trade agreement. The EU has Britain over a barrel. Yes, it will use its best endeavours to reach a deal by the end of the transition period, but it will be a negotiation in which the UK has few cards left to play. We will face a number of cliff edges, starting with fisheries in mid-2020, as the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, has just referred to. The balance of probability is that we will be salami-sliced into making one concession after another.
The EU has every incentive to play it long, bearing in mind that most trade deals take years to agree, and this one will run to several thousand pages. My old friend and colleague Sir Ivan Rogers was right to advise the Prime Minister in 2016 that agreeing such a deal could take up to a decade. I would be happy to place a large bet that no deal will be ready by the time the transition period expires at the end of December 2020, so either the transition period will be extended or the UK will enter the backstop arrangement. The former will require the EU’s agreement. Exit from the latter also requires EU agreement.
With hindsight, it is not very surprising that we have ended up in this position. The Government have made a number of strategic errors. First, they have never prepared the country for a no-deal scenario, so the threat of a hard Brexit has never been credible. Secondly, the Government triggered the Article 50 process without a clear plan for the way forward. Thirdly, at no point did the Government seek to create a cross-party consensus.
To this day, I am not sure the Prime Minister fully understood what she had signed up to when she agreed the Irish backstop last year. If she did, she never explained it to her then Foreign Secretary and DExEU Secretary, judging by their resignations some six months later. I think it is therefore perfectly reasonable for Parliament to ask the Government to think again. I am not under any illusions—the balance of probability is that they will not be able to wring substantive concessions from the EU, but it may be possible to tweak the declaration. Parliament may choose to give a clearer steer in favour of a Norway-plus arrangement. It may even instruct the Government to seek to negotiate an extension of the Article 50 process, as part of a bridge either to another general election or to a referendum. I am agnostic as to which of these options is preferable.
At this stage, a chaotic no deal is not a credible threat, since this Government still have the option of bringing the agreement back to Parliament in February or early March. For myself, at five minutes to midnight on 28 March, I might speak in favour of this deal.
Whatever happens in the coming weeks, we are going to have to get used to negotiating with the EU, and we are going to have to get used to negotiating trade deals with third countries. These will be particularly difficult, since I cannot see the United States Congress agreeing any deal without the UK lowering food standards. I also wonder whether the British people are yet ready for chlorinated chicken and hormone-infused beef—as much as they enthuse me. Interestingly, the Government’s analysis suggests that they do not expect these deals to add much to national income any time soon, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, pointed out. But whatever else happens, the Government will have to learn to multitask. Over the last two years, Brexit has created a policy exclusion zone across Whitehall.
At a time of uncertainty around our trading relations, promoting economic growth is now more important than ever. It is essential if the younger generation is finally to see an increase in living standards. Growth will not come from running a large budget deficit, but it will come from improving the supply side. I hope that at some point the Government will come forward with a serious and comprehensive plan for infrastructure, skills, competition and innovation. In addition, as my noble friend Lord Wilson suggested, they should develop a prospectus which will engage and enthuse the younger generation.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, to the extent that, during my six years in this House, I have been able to make any impression at all—which may be questionable —I hope that I have been able to convey my uncompromising attachment to the European ideal, and my belief that the future of the four nations of these islands is best served within an European context.
As a democrat, I respect the outcome of the referendum. I respect the 52% who voted to leave— but also the 48% who voted to remain. I am acutely conscious that the English approach to politics is one of “winner takes all”, as reflected in the electoral system. Our values in Wales are perhaps a little different, based on our sharing within the community—perhaps a reflection of being rooted in gavelkind rather than primogeniture. In the referendum, the leave side knew what it was voting against, without coherence as to what it was voting for, so in trying to implement the wishes of leavers there were no clear benchmarks. The leavers never had one clear-cut manifesto as to what would follow the UK leaving the EU.
Over the past two years, a whole phalanx of leave-voting Ministers have represented the UK in negotiations in Brussels and with the international world. They have made an appalling botch of it, which is partly why we are in such a mess today. We had the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson insisting that he could have his cake and eat it; David Davis, who led the Brexit negotiations, managed to negotiate with Michel Barnier for just four hours in two years; and, most recently, we had Dominic Raab, who negotiated this withdrawal agreement then resigned from the Cabinet in protest against what he had done. It beggars belief.
The Brexit camp has had its chance; today’s withdrawal agreement is the best that can be mustered—and, frankly, it just is not good enough. It just shifts the uncertainty facing manufacturing industry and agriculture a couple of years down the road to the end of the transition period, which may well turn out to be a bridge to nowhere. It leaves the Irish border issue largely unresolved, and unresolvable, given that both the EU and the UK have a veto on the backstop issue. It leaves uncertainty in the minds of EU citizens in the UK regarding their future, with the massive implications that has for the health service, our universities and our tourist sector.
The Government promised to carry the devolved regimes with them, but from both Edinburgh and Cardiff and their two very different Governments we have had the same retort: that they were not part of developing strategy, nor was agreement sought from them on the final terms. The concerns of the National Assembly remain: the long-term future of our manufacturing and agricultural exports; the failure to make adequate preparations in our ports; whether EU structural funding will be replaced, which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, emphasised in the equally valid English context; that there will not be a power grab, reversing aspects of the devolution settlement; the fair management of state aid and procurement policy issues; and that the UK will be a partnership of equals, not a Westminster-dominated, neo-unitary state.
As a result of these misgivings, yesterday’s debate on the withdrawal agreement in the National Assembly in Cardiff had the dramatic outcome of the governing Labour Party supporting the Plaid Cymru amendment to reject the UK Government’s proposals; I am glad to see that trend among Labour colleagues in Cardiff. It is interesting to note that today in the Scottish Parliament there was a vote of 92 to 29, also rejecting the proposals. On Tuesday, Welsh MPs will no doubt vote over- whelmingly against this inadequate agreement and it will be buried without trace.
It could have been so very different. There was a workable compromise available, as I have repeatedly stressed in this House, since it was published two years ago. It is contained in the Welsh White Paper Securing Wales’ Future, which accepts leaving the EU but seeks a new settlement involving membership of the customs union and a single market arrangement. That would essentially be a form of common market, which many Brexiters hankered for during the referendum. If the Government had sought a constructive compromise along these lines, it was there for them. They know that there was support for that within Labour ranks, Plaid Cymru and the SNP. Mrs May refused to consider such a step. I was so sorry that last month, when there was so much to play for, the Leader of this House—whom I am pleased to see in her seat—was unwilling to discuss this with me. So be it.
We are now faced with the real possibility of a no-deal Brexit, which would be an absolute disaster. It must be stopped at all costs. While I accept that the final word on these issues must rightly rest with the elected Chamber, I will support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. If the only alternatives are this withdrawal agreement or no deal, there must be a provision to return the matter to the people. They asked Parliament to seek a new arrangement with Europe, and it is only proper that they be asked whether they really want to go down this disastrous road.
Perhaps it should now be a matter for Parliament, having taken over control of these processes from the Government—as we have seen with the votes last night, and as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, mentioned earlier—to refine and adopt the preferred model of Brexit, and for that proposal then to be run off against the status quo in a people’s vote. As the European court is being advised that the UK can unilaterally withdraw the Article 50 application, the Government should now give notice of their intention to do so, or at least seek a postponement long enough to arrange a people’s vote, which must have the option of remaining in the EU on present terms. If the people then vote to leave, so be it. But if they wake up to the realities facing us, let us withdraw our notice to leave the EU and then start the important work of trying to rebuild our relationships with the continent of which we are a part, and in partnership with which our future most assuredly lies.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, it is interesting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, because he epitomises those in this House who stubbornly refuse to accept what the people voted for, who constantly use the word “if”, not “when”, and who still hope that we will stay in. We are where we are because of two and a half wasted years: it has been trench warfare, with people trying to prevent us making headway. History will not be kind to those who have been so destructive in pushing through a vote of the people. Even the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who is not in his place, said “if” we come out. It is not “if” but “when” we come out—and how we come out. Many noble Lords have done a disservice to the nation in the way they have approached this.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about leaving, and said that people, in voting to leave, did not know this or that. What is it about the word “leave” that people do not understand? If you leave something, such as an organisation, a family or a company, you know what you are doing. You know that there will be consequences—of course you do; you think them through—but you still vote to leave. How patronising to say that people did not know what they were doing when they voted to leave. In 2016, they voted to leave the EU without any conditions whatever, yet an unholy alliance of recalcitrant remainers, remain-leaning civil servants, artful EU negotiators and an unhelpful Ireland has left us, after two years, being asked to accept a deal that completely betrays the decision we took and is totally unacceptable. It must, and I feel sure it will, be voted down by the House of Commons.
Monsieur Barnier’s brief on behalf of the EU was to try to stop us leaving: to drag things out for as long as possible in the hope that we would give up and, in the end, to give us the worst possible deal so that no other member state would dare to try to leave. How well he has met his brief. It is a mess. There are understandable calls to just get on with it, but we must not fall into the trap of signing something we will regret for ever just because we are tired of discussing it. There are other sensible ways ahead: either Canada-plus-plus or the WTO—the no-deal option, which sounds more negative than it really is, which would allow us to trade on World Trade Organization terms, as most nations do. He is not in his place now, but how well this was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, on the other side of the Chamber, in his excellent speech earlier.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly said, “Brexit means Brexit”, “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” and “No deal is better than a bad deal”. If these words are to mean anything and if any trust is to be left in our political system, Parliament must vote down the dreadful deal presented to it and set out in a new direction which, even if it brings us short-term problems to overcome, truly respects the decision the country took in 2016.
The saddest and most worrying aspect of this whole process has been, since the very day of the referendum, the deep and frightening divisions it has created between strangers, between friends and even within families. It is so important that the healing process starts as soon as possible, for the sake of the fabric of our society and to enable normal government to resume. As so often, the healing process cannot begin until decisions have been made, which requires leadership. To deal with some of the suggestions currently flying about, staying in would be a total betrayal of trust and would, I fear, have the direst of consequences, perhaps even civil unrest. A second referendum would open up old wounds, solve nothing and take too long; it should be dismissed out of hand. A people’s vote on any deal would be complex, difficult to understand, divisive and, in truth, an abdication of governmental responsibility.
If the withdrawal agreement is voted down in the Commons, the only course of action is to set a new proposal before the EU. I know the EU has said that it will not countenance that but, faced with this situation, it will have to. It should in my view be a Canada-plus-plus or similar deal, which has already been offered and which, with genuine co-operation to solve the overblown Irish border issue, could work quite satisfactorily. Then, perhaps, the healing process can begin.
In his speech today, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury mentioned the need for vision. As a nation with all that we have to offer the world, we should show self-belief without arrogance, conviction without pomposity, determination without aggression, competition without rancour and leadership without conceit. We must champion our deep-rooted belief in the value and integrity of the nation state and our distrust of blocs that attempt to harmonise and formalise unnatural groupings. Europe should be a flexible jigsaw of independent nation states working closely together, but each able to flex separately in response to its individual needs. Cementing nations together in blocs or unions produces a stultifying rigidity, tension, friction and, ultimately, cracking and break-up, which is now starting to happen in the EU. We are not tearing ourselves out of the heart of a thriving organisation, but sensibly detaching ourselves from an ailing bloc that has within it the increasingly obvious seeds of self-destruction. We will be of much more use to the EU in the long term as a strong and independent ally than as a disgruntled partner.
I finish by praising in her absence my noble friend Lady Meyer for her words this evening; let us be more confident in our own nation and drive this matter forward with a sensible deal that everybody wants to see.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, this is not just about confidence in our nation; it is about our obligation to future generations. Leave means my seven grandchildren and how they will be affected in future years. Brexit means my seven grandchildren, all your Lordships’ grandchildren and all the children in our country. Will it be better for them to have fewer benefits than we have had, or should we think first of them when we vote on this deal?
Just after the Second World War, the community of Llangollen in north Wales established the international musical festival, which has brought people from many countries together. It still goes on; I spoke only this morning to its press office. This past year it brought applications from 3,919 competitors from 64 locations; it brought together people who had been at enmity with one another. As people who have been fighting each other, we suddenly find ourselves in a situation where we either stretch out to one another in friendship or say we want to carry on building a wall.
When the first eisteddfod was held, one choir hitchhiked from Hungary to reach Llangollen—I find it difficult to think of a choir hitchhiking. The following time, a German choir from Lübeck came over to Llangollen. Members of the choir were not sure what sort of reception they would get because we had been at war. They were going to sing to those who had been their enemies and they were very uncertain. But the compère at the eisteddfod on that day was Hywel Roberts, who greeted them by saying, “We are now going to hear from our German friends”. It has taken a long time to build this: to build relationships and get over the enmity of the past. But it has been done, in many different ways. Will we continue with these feelings of friendship? Will we continue building bridges and not walls?
A decade after the Llangollen eisteddfod started, we had the embryonic European movement. This also brought together countries which had been at enmity. When I was in Berlin at a conference some time ago, I said, “The last time one of my family was here he was in a bomber plane over the city, but now we are talking together”. One of the major competitions in Llangollen is the Pavarotti choral competition. So why are we taking a step back? What reason have we for becoming more distant from those who once were distant from us but with whom we are now comrades?
Union takes a long time; of course it does. In Wales we united in a way with England in 1534. We still have our problems; it is an evolving thing. We have our Assembly and certain powers. Our union will always evolve. It is not ready-made or a finished product, and neither is the European Union, or our place in the European Union, because we are in an evolving situation. Without Llangollen and without the European Union, the world would be far more threatening and far more unstable. Every move towards co-operation and understanding is in the right direction. The weakening of our ties with Europe is a backward move. We halt the free movement of people; we withdraw the status of our own people as citizens of Europe. What are we doing? Do we know what we are doing? Are we to be known as those who built walls and not bridges—the Canutes of history? Or are we people who will build this relationship and this understanding? Our children will benefit from what we do in this debate or they will look back on us and say, “Ah, things were different in my grandfather’s time”.
I appeal to all Members of the House—the details, of course, will be worked out over many years—to let us build a world fit for children to live in. We can either do it or be a barrier to it. It is our decision.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I will explain briefly why I shall support the deal negotiated by the Prime Minister, albeit with great reluctance and very considerable reservations. I shall also support the amendment to the regret Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, for the reasons that he so eloquently expressed.
I start from the proposition that I am wholly opposed to the policy of Brexit. I believe that Brexit will damage Britain in many important respects. The dire economic consequences were highlighted in the recent Treasury and Bank of England assessments. If this were the moment to do so, I would vote to stop Brexit, either through a decision of Parliament or a further referendum—or more probably both. If that were not possible, I would support the softest version of Brexit available.
But now is not the moment for that. Those questions are not now before the House, although they may very soon be. What we are presently discussing is the deal negotiated by the Prime Minister. That is the subject of this debate. I acknowledge that many criticisms can properly be made of the deal—from both sides of the argument. Some of those defects were very clearly identified in the hitherto private advice from the Attorney-General to the Cabinet, and have also been developed by noble Lords in this House. However, despite the fact that many of those criticisms are wholly valid, I shall support the deal for fear of worse: namely, crashing out of the EU without a deal.
I know that many of my remainer friends will oppose the deal on the basis that out of rejection comes chaos, out of chaos comes opportunity and out of opportunity will come salvation. Their optimism has been much encouraged by the advice given by the Advocate General to the European Court and by the procedural amendment tabled by Mr Dominic Grieve and passed by the House of Commons yesterday. Both of these developments are much to be welcomed, but I am not yet sufficiently persuaded to take the risk of rejecting the Prime Minister’s deal.
I acknowledge that out of rejection chaos will ensue, and that out of chaos opportunities will emerge—but of salvation I am not confident. A disaster seems equally probable. I fear that, by inadvertence, error, misjudgments, lack of leadership, or an inability to assemble a cross-party consensus, we could crash out of the EU without a deal. That would be a calamity and it is a risk that I am not willing to run. It is on that narrow—and I admit very fragile—basis that I support the deal.
However, if the deal fails, as seems very probable, I shall support whatever measures seem most likely to keep us in the European Union on existing terms—most especially through a further referendum, following the early withdrawal of the Article 50 notification which, as a result of the Grieve amendment, the House of Commons could and should direct. If such a referendum is not available I shall support the softest possible version of Brexit.
I shall make common cause with whoever supports these views. That is what many Conservatives did in the 1930s when they rallied behind the national Government. My grandfather was among them. That is what the Conservatives did in May 1940 when they replaced Chamberlain with Churchill. My father was among them. That is what many Labour MPs did when they voted to join the Common Market. On all of these occasions the national interest was deemed paramount. If this deal fails to command support in the House of Commons, we must unite, across parties, if necessary under a Government of national unity, to prevent the disaster of no deal.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
Sorry, we seem to have missed somebody.
My Lords, exiting or extricating ourselves from over 40 years’ membership of the European Union was clearly never going to be as simple or as easy as was suggested by some ardent Brexiteers during the referendum campaign. As a remainer, I am sad that even during our early years of membership we tended to take a negative stance, waiting for another country to suggest a policy and then criticising it. The big exception to this was, of course, the single market, pioneered when I was a member of the first directly-elected European Parliament, ably carried through by my late noble friend Lord Cockfield and strongly supported by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.
We have also been reminded today by my noble friend Lord Heseltine of the creation of the European Space Agency, which was another British initiative—and indeed there are others, but not enough. Taking control of our future, which so many people have advocated in the course of this debate, could have been done just as easily within the European Union as by going it alone, had we taken all the opportunities that Ted Heath envisaged when he led us into membership at our third attempt—let us not forget—way back in 1973.
I am also saddened by some of the language that has been used in these debates and in the press, giving the impression that our European partners and neighbours are now our adversaries, when they have been very forbearing about our rash decision to leave and made clear their feelings only last week at the conclusion of the withdrawal agreement talks, expressing that this was a sad moment and saying how sorry they would be to see us leave. There were no corresponding expressions of sadness on our part, I am sad to say.
Even today, in my noble friend’s otherwise excellent introduction to this debate, she stated that the agreement meant that we would no longer be sending billions of pounds to Brussels every year—implying that we had been giving it away when, in fact, it has all gone towards paying our dues for overseas development and overseas trade negotiation, among other things. All of these payments will have to be replicated on a national basis now and we have only to look at the brand new Department for International Trade which has been created with—as I understand it—over 600 civil servants to know where all these billions will be going in the future.
On the subject of trade and trade deals—this is where I see at least a glimmer of hope and possible excitement in the future—I would like to point out that there has been nothing to prevent our trading with third countries throughout our membership of the European Union. Trade deals and trade agreements by themselves achieve nothing. What is needed for increased trade is getting businesses and potential investors on the ground overseas, seeking possibilities and negotiating contracts. So what we need is more trade promotion, and I hope that, in winding up, my noble friend will be able to reassure us that this is all part of the Government’s planning—although I realise that we shall have plenty of time to discuss such things if and when we overcome the present hurdle of the withdrawal agreement.
The other area of concern for me is the fate of the overseas territories. It is not just Gibraltar that has border issues; Anguilla also has an EU border in the Caribbean. In fact, all the overseas territories will be adversely affected as a result of our withdrawal from the European Union. So in welcoming the protocols on Gibraltar and the sovereign base areas, and the Prime Minister’s continuing assurances that Gibraltar will not be forgotten, I express the hope that all the overseas territories will be taken into consideration and their specific needs safeguarded.
My preferred option at the conclusion of all these discussions would be to remain as a member of the European Union—that would certainly suit Gibraltar—and I would support anyone who had the temerity to put forward a Motion to rescind Article 50. Whoever considers doing that will have my support. I certainly do not want another referendum—ever—although I understand those who feel that, with clearer information now, people might vote in a different way. However, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who put it so well at the outset, I too have come to the conclusion that the best way forward is to support the Prime Minister’s hard-fought agreement.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and I agree with many, although not all, of the points that she made. I declare my role as a former MEP.
It is not overdramatic to say that this country is facing the worst crisis since the Suez crisis of 1956, and arguably the worst crisis since the Second World War. At least in the case of Suez, the run on the pound was mercifully short, and the change of Prime Minister was smoothly executed as Macmillan succeeded Eden. Yesterday, for the first time in British history, a Government were found in contempt of Parliament, which I think shows how the body politic in the UK is in collective meltdown at the moment.
It is also clear that the UK’s exit from the EU on the basis of the withdrawal agreement before us will have severe ramifications for many years, perhaps generations, to come. To take another historical analogy, and following on from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who gave some historical examples, the withdrawal agreement resembles a set of terms foisted on a defeated nation, rather like the Treaty of Versailles. As the Government’s published legal advice shows, the UK will have no unilateral right to end the backstop or exit the single customs territory. As a crumb of comfort, we have been told that the withdrawal agreement says it is intended to apply “only temporarily”. However, the reality is that Brussels will have no incentive to release the UK from the Irish backstop.
The political declaration is in my view meaningless, containing 26 pages of vague aspirations which have no legal force, unlike the withdrawal agreement itself. It will take very many years to negotiate a proper future relationship with the EU, and the declaration is full of vague, non-committal phrases, as has been said many times in your Lordships’ House today.
The Brexit negotiations have been a shambles, not helped by the disarray in the Government. They have, frankly, been a national humiliation. Anyone competent on the negotiating team has either resigned or been sacked. Meanwhile, Brussels appointed a capable Frenchman to run rings round the British negotiators and poach financial services from the City of London, with Paris blatantly wooing our companies to relocate.
The question for your Lordships’ House and Her Majesty’s Government is: what do we do now? The EU has made it clear that the deal cannot be renegotiated, and even if the political declaration is tinkered with, that will not do the trick. As oft repeated by noble Lords, the British people voted for Brexit but they did not vote to be worse off. The Prime Minister says that the options are her deal, leaving without a deal, no Brexit or going back to square 1. We have to hold our hands up to the British people and say that after over two years we are just not ready to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. We cannot salvage this deal. We were not adequately prepared for it and we have been consistently outmanoeuvred by Brussels.
We need time as a Parliament and as a country to sort ourselves out. We need to extend or revoke Article 50—a point that, again, has been raised a number of times in your Lordships’ House—and use the time to negotiate a different deal, scrapping the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration in their entirety. The EU says that it will not renegotiate the agreement: fair enough; let us look at an entirely different model. This could, for example, be a customs union, allowing for real frictionless trade in goods and services, restrictions on freedom of movement and the ability to sign our own free trade agreements. That would also solve the Irish backstop issue and there would be no need for a hard border. Such a deal can be negotiated; they just did not try.
The EU also understands that attitudes on the continent towards untrammelled freedom of movement have changed since the UK’s referendum, especially in Italy and central and eastern Europe. Before the referendum, when David Cameron came back from Brussels with no meaningful agreement on curtailing freedom of movement, both he and the agreement were doomed. That was the EU’s big mistake, in my view. It reminded me of when Mikhail Gorbachev was refused vital loans from the West in 1991, and he and the USSR were overthrown in a matter of weeks, with tanks rumbling on the streets of Moscow; and Gorbachev knew it was coming.
The British people voted leave in the referendum for two main reasons: to end uncontrolled immigration and to restore our sovereignty. The proposed withdrawal agreement deals with the former to a limited extent but fails on the latter. Theresa May should not make the same mistake with this half-baked deal as Cameron did in 2016. It will damage the economy and trap the UK in a form of single customs territory, where we will have no say over our future. We need to restart this process with the EU from the beginning, if necessary, and if that requires fresh legislation from Parliament so be it. There is no point in holding a second referendum unless freedom of movement is addressed; the result would likely be the same. All this may not be ideal, but any idea of the UK exiting the EU on time and in an ideal way is long past.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, listening to today’s debate, I am reminded what a privilege it is to be a Member of your Lordships’ House. From time to time, struck by fear, I wonder what I can possibly contribute to such a debate. Then I say to myself that I have my own experience, which may be helpful to one or two of your Lordships.
My father became politically engaged at the age of 17. Fairly early, he became a London county councillor, and he served in your Lordships’ House for many years. He was a very reliable father, and I think your Lordships found him a very reliable Member of this House. He had two pieces of life advice to give me, which also apply to politics and which he probably drew from politics. The first was: if you make a mistake, do not worry about it too much; just learn from it and do not repeat it. The second was: do not raise expectations in people and then disappoint them. In thinking about that mistake, my sense is that there is something rotten, if you like, in the state of our constitution and our polity. We are so proud—we are the mother of parliaments. We have been so successful as a nation, defending Europe against the tyrant Napoleon and the tyrant Hitler, that it may be hard for us to think that we need to change.
I recently visited Germany, which, of course, had the opposite experience. It was crushed and had to change. In fact, we played a large hand in rewriting its constitution of basic law. In all the pain that we are currently experiencing, I hope there may also be an opportunity for us to look at the processes, the system and the constitution that we have and think: are they fit for purpose in the 21st century, in the complex society we now live in?
My noble friend Lord Wilson, speaking about the 17 year-olds he was interviewing for university, said how tested they were. Indeed, some time ago the Chief Inspector of Schools described our children as the most tested in the world. This points out a wider anxiety. Yes, we are a very polarised society—very rich and very poor. For such a wealthy country, there is a terrible disparity in wealth. But, more widely, we are a country that experiences deep insecurity. Many people work long hours for low pay, with job insecurity, and many have insecure housing.
Going to Germany, what struck me most was that it is a prosperous country that also achieves a great deal of social security and comfort. Its shops still do not open on Sundays. If one works past 6 pm, one is seen as inefficient. No businesses are allowed to email their workers after 8 pm, yet it is a most productive, economically successful country. Last year, in preparing to visit the Bundestag with an all-party parliamentary group, I looked at the history of Germany’s political system from 1945 onwards. What struck me was the continuity—not only of leadership but of parties and different coalitions, and their ability to collaborate rather than always be in opposition. Collaboration and continuity are such important qualities, which I do not think we have been able to deliver in this country. I hope we can look to the best-performing nations and see whether we can learn from them and perhaps reform ourselves. That is one good thing that might come from the current crisis that we are experiencing.
The second thing my father said was: do not raise expectations in people that you cannot deliver. My heart jumps for joy in some senses to think that there might be another referendum—that this was all a bad dream and we can all go back to where we were a few years ago. But I think of my father’s advice and I wonder how those people who voted in the referendum for us to remove ourselves from the European Union, who have been led to believe that we have been working solidly towards that over the past two years, will react when they are told, “Sorry, we’re going to rerun it”, and, “We’re going in a different direction now”. I do not have any easy answer to that. If that is the way we go, we have a piece of work to do. Look at France at the moment—at Macron and the yellow vests. When he was elected, Le Monde commented that it was an interesting development and exciting to have Macron and La République En Marche!, but Marine Le Pen is waiting. If Macron falls flat on his face, she is well positioned to take over. In America, we see in Donald Trump a leader who has worked on those people who felt disenfranchised in the rust belt. In Italy, we see the Five Star Movement taking control. Noble Lords might say that it could never happen here, but there are nationalist parties and nationalists who might have influence and even control, so we cannot discount that. I am concerned about that.
I want to express my admiration for Theresa May. In the way that she sticks with her job, she reminds me of the mothers of my acquaintance who live in very difficult circumstances and still struggle to do their best for their children. I am generalising wildly, but generally women have to stick with their children while men can walk away. I know that many men are looking after children and women sometimes walk away, but one of the important differences between men and women is that generally women have to stick with the child whereas men can choose to walk away. I sense that Mrs May has stuck with the child while many of the men and women involved have walked away. I am heartened. She has challenged her party in the past, saying that it is perceived as the nasty party. She dared to talk at a party conference about the value of social housing. She put aside £2 billion for affordable housing and removed the cap on borrowing for local authorities so that they can borrow to build more social housing. I respect the way that she has pursued that agenda, even when she has had to carry forward Brexit.
Whatever happens, I hope we can continue in that direction. As the most reverend Primate said, it should not be the poor who carry the burden of this impoverishment that is Brexit, but those with the broadest shoulders. The Liberal Democrats have often talked about a land tax. We should look at whether we can take some money from those who can afford it and roll back the welfare cuts on the poorest.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, however people view Brexit and the controversy surrounding it, we have now certainly reached a critical phase in the Brexit undertaking. We have moved a long way since the referendum, in what has proved to be a tortuous and highly charged process. But let us just remember a few things. We were threatened with huge increases in unemployment, a major recession and a flight of capital. Conversely, we were told that because we import considerable numbers of cars from Germany, businesses in the rest of Europe would push their Governments into responding to our demands unhesitatingly. The simple reality, for those of us who sit on EU committees, is the sheer complexity of what this process has involved, the way that we have integrated so much of our activity with the European Union in bringing businesses, investment and employment into this country, and how complicated the divorce process is. Many businesses that located here simply as an entry point to the single market have put further investment on hold.
I should like to examine some of the elements of the withdrawal agreement that need to be further refined and clarified. The checks and balances of this agreement, under Article 164, are in effect to be controlled by a Joint Committee. Its main function is to keep, with qualification, the withdrawal agreement under review, but its decisions equate to the same legal effect as the agreement itself. It will oversee some specialised committees, which may be added to, during transition and for a period of four years thereafter, so it has the potential for real power and influence. For those of us who fear opacity, some clarity about oversight is certainly needed and we should not overlook this.
We have a proud and long-standing network of relationships forged in our history but also, more latterly, through our membership of the EU. In areas such as security and defence, sanctions and overseas aid, our relationships with the EU have enhanced the reputation and capability of the EU and indeed ourselves.
The political declaration expresses the intention to co-operate closely at a bilateral level and within international organisations when and where the interests of the United Kingdom and the European Union are shared. The political declaration talks of consultation and dialogue in respect of foreign, security and defence policy. But the actual process is unclear and appears to preclude the United Kingdom even requesting attendance at members’ meetings when clearly appropriate. So perhaps I may express the hope that as our relationship post Brexit evolves, the unqualified offer made by our Prime Minister on these matters achieves a more clearly definable form. Frankly, the attitude of European members as regards the Galileo project has made no sense in this context.
I happen to chair the British Ukrainian Society. The appalling aggression recently of Russia in the Sea of Azov, and spilling over into the Black Sea, simply reinforces the need for us to co-operate intensely with our European neighbours and, for example, to undertake sanctions together in our mutual interest wherever that is appropriate.
The question of the backstop is one that has understandably greatly exercised your Lordships. It is certainly a matter of the most profound regret that the question of the border on the island of Ireland has in my view been so mishandled. Of course, at the last minute there was a hiccup but essentially the issue of Gibraltar’s relationship with Spain was quietly and efficiently resolved. By contrast, the loud running commentary surrounding the Northern Ireland border question has led to considerable tension and mistrust within the United Kingdom, and of course particularly in Northern Ireland. There are those who believe, however, that the European Union may not wish to see the backstop operating for any length of time, if at all.
It is worth noting that in the backstop part of the withdrawal agreement, level playing field rules cover various sectors, but in only one are we are required to maintain future EU rules—namely, state aid, which on the face of it seems perfectly legitimate. There are, additionally, those who believe that while we have tariff-free access to European markets without paying money, there may be a considered view among some European countries that the United Kingdom would have a competitive advantage over their own country and their own economy. But it is very unclear at this time and the politics of the situation—I say this as a unionist—are very difficult indeed. I hope that this matter can be somehow revisited and changed if we are to move on successfully. Certainly, the parliamentary arithmetic dictates that.
I conclude with an expression of hope for our future. Almost all industrialised countries are riven by division, much aggravated by anonymous social networks. Whatever one’s view of Brexit, it is wrong that individual civil servants and judges, and even the Governor of the Bank of England, have been criticised so personally. I hope we can move beyond the current stage quickly, so that we can get on to trade negotiations. I should just add, as one of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys, that there is now nothing to prevent us pursuing commercial activity abroad. I see for myself the ferocious competition between us and other members of the European Union but, all being well, the next stage will be trade negotiations. They are one of the two key elements of our departure from the European Union; namely, to be able to secure direct and comprehensive trade deal arrangements abroad to ensure our future.
I can only hope that we will move on to the next stage, in whatever form it takes, free of the rancour that is certainly alien to our traditional standards of debate. But as I have seen in my export promotion role, there is enormous affection for this country, considerable admiration for the resilience of our Prime Minister and high regard for our parliamentary processes. The deal we have struck is certainly imperfect, but in essence it is probably, in my view, what we could have expected and we should now move on accordingly. That is my great hope for what will happen in the weeks and months to come.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, this morning my noble friend Lady Smith recalled that during the debates on the EU withdrawal Bill in April, a cross-party group of us moved an amendment calling on the Government to seek a parliamentary mandate to guide their negotiating stance with the EU, with the object of promoting some kind of common purpose in this country while there was still some time to try to work that out. I am pleased to say that this House supported that amendment while the other place narrowly did not—at least until last night when Parliament claimed a measure of control over a stumbling, fumbling Cabinet which, it should be remembered, could not produce a plan until the ill-fated Chequers arrangements were unveiled to a sceptical world. I now look forward to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on last night’s developments, and inquire whether the Cabinet will now accept the fact that Parliament should do its job and sort out a mandate if, as is widely expected, the deal is voted down next Tuesday.
The Prime Minister has spent two miserable years trying to make sense of the decision to leave the EU. She has been trapped by her own red lines and the politics of her own party. We can now see the result: a deal with no clear position for the UK after the end of the transitional period; a deal wreathed in uncertainty about the medium-term future; a deal with humiliating supplicatory features. The Prime Minister’s determination has been admirable, her political skills—I am afraid—less so. As my noble friend Lady Smith put it, we are heading for a blindfold Brexit that offers no certainty after the implementation period for the working people and businesses of our country.
The best that can be said about the deal is that it is better than no deal—that disruptive act of self-harm, which still, rather surprisingly to me, has its adherents in this Parliament. On its own merits, however, the deal does not pass the awkward exam the nation posed to the Government in June 2016. What we need now is greater clarity about the future. The political declaration, in effect, just sets out a long difficult agenda of complex issues for further work and negotiations, all to be tackled in the transitional period. Much weight would rest on the phrases “best endeavours” and “good faith”, which are in the agreement.
I do not doubt the initial good intentions and good faith on both sides, but they are not certain to win through, and after a row on, say, fishing rights or Gibraltar—or it could be one of many other things that we cannot yet see—the whole negotiation could be blown way off course. The Swiss arrangements with the EU mean that the Swiss are involved in complex continuing negotiations as they chafe at the agreement they originally made. That is some kind of vision of hell for the future of this country—tied into perpetual negotiations trying to sort out problems with 27 countries from the position of an outsider. The only certainty is that this deal will leave the nation poorer than we are now, as the Bank of England tells us on a regular basis.
I want to touch on concerns about workers’ rights, which the TUC has expressed to Members of this House. There is a risk that during the transition period, rights in the UK would start to fall behind, despite the welcome assurances about UK employment rights mirroring those in the EU. This is because EU rights develop rather slowly, time is taken to secure an agreement, and then time is added on for national parliaments to implement them. Measures on the work/life balance, the gig economy and handling migration better are in the pipeline, but may not be ready until the transitional period ends, so British workers could well miss out—unless the Government commit themselves to mirror those rights in the longer term in UK law.
There are also problems with rights during the period of any Irish backstop, and with not being able to secure enforcement of rights once access to the ECJ ends. That, taken together, does not look like the basis for a level playing field for British workers to me. A temporary customs arrangement would help to avoid an immediate resurrection of a harder Irish border—although not necessarily for the medium or longer term; that is why the Irish backstop is there, after all—but how would a temporary customs arrangement help the UK to handle the movement of labour from the EU coming through Ireland to the UK? How would we combat the people traffickers who would stop unfettered access for all EU citizens to the UK via Irish airports and ports? The customs union alone does not tackle this major problem.
I agree with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which said recently that,
“there is no such thing as ‘a good Brexit for working people’ in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland”.
I cannot see a good outcome for working people in the UK. I therefore live in hope that we can find a way to reconsider our approach to Brexit. The road to another popular vote, with a remain recommendation, is difficult to see. As a precursor, it would need determined leadership from Parliament and the Government and a degree of common will, which is not evident at present. If we cannot get there, we should look again at remaining in the European Economic Area and rejoining EFTA, not as a temporary arrangement but on a long-term basis. We should look to a revived and strengthened EFTA, exerting greater influence than it can at present.
I do not accept the characterisation of Norway as supine to the EU, as was made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and others. We could make that option work if my preferred option—to remain—proves elusive. In the meantime, I ask the House to back the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon. Let us start again and go down a different path.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as outlined in the register. I will focus my remarks on my area of expertise. The questions before us are of great importance; I am aware that the vote in the other House will inform the future of the UK’s relationship with the EU.
A no-deal Brexit could result in the possibility of an immediate risk to both the provision of safe and effective healthcare and collective efforts to improve public health. Following the UK’s vote to leave the EU, nurses and midwives from Europe are leaving the UK register at a faster rate than those joining because of the uncertainty about their right to remain.
Healthcare leaders have consistently argued that there needs to be a transition period following our withdrawal from the EU, particularly in relation to free movement of workers. A no-deal Brexit without a transition period would likely cause significant challenges for the health and social care sector. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Campbell told me yesterday that four of her five personal assistants are from the European Union.
In the NHS in England, there are 41,000 registered nurse vacancies despite the fact that 30,000 European registered nurses work here. In addition to filling vital gaps in our workforce, nurses from Europe and all our international nursing staff add to the cultural richness of the NHS.
A no-deal Brexit also poses significant risks to our public health efforts. The EU plays a vital role in maintaining public health across all its member states. There are sector-wide concerns that Brexit and the withdrawal of EU funding for public health measures could negatively impact on the health of the UK population, especially if the UK were to crash out of the EU without a deal. The UK could even lose its membership of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, which would mean our exclusion from important reporting mechanisms about emerging public health threats, comparing important surveillance data on communicable diseases and other health threats.
Other risks of a no-deal Brexit may include our loss of access to immediate medications and a lack of protection for workforce regulations. There is a possibility that the UK will find it more difficult to access medicines and medical devices, which may cause delays in new drugs and repeat drugs being made available for patients. I know that there is considerable stockpiling, but there would still be a significant risk with a no-deal Brexit.
Making any changes to the EU regulatory framework for clinical trials would also significantly increase the burden on UK researchers and pharmaceutical companies. In fact, this could make the UK a much less attractive place to conduct clinical trials, with knock-on effects for access to new medicines and international participation in multi-centred trials.
A no-deal Brexit and its potential economic impact could have significant implications for EU-derived worker protections. Were there to be a significant economic hit from a no-deal Brexit scenario, the UK Government may be tempted to reduce worker protections in order to cut costs. This could negatively impact on patient care, further undermining nursing as a career of choice if nurses find themselves left exhausted and unprotected in their employment terms.
In May 2018, Royal College of Nursing members debated the implications of Brexit, resulting in a vote to campaign for a referendum on any final deal. As the debate made clear, the implications of Brexit for the health and social care system are numerous. The UK’s nursing shortage risks being further worsened because of uncertainty surrounding the status of EU nursing staff. Settled status has been guaranteed by the Home Office irrespective of whether there is a deal or no deal with the EU before March 2019. I welcome the introduction of the settled status pilot scheme for invited EU staff working at selected trusts in the north of England. However, its rollout appears to be very slow.
The Prime Minister has made a convincing argument for recommending that Parliament accepts the withdrawal deal that has been negotiated and that no better terms are available. It is difficult to find a more realistic solution, although several noble Lords have suggested some today. In reality, it is the Government’s responsibility to keep the people they represent safe in terms not only of security but also in terms of the nation’s health and wealth.
Many people who voted to leave the EU believed it would result in a more prosperous United Kingdom. While this may be so in the long term, current forecasts suggest that in the short term we will be significantly worse off. Poverty is detrimental to people’s health. Major investment in the NHS has been announced and yet we know that it will be almost impossible to achieve the NHS five-year plan without sufficient staff to meet the needs of the service.
Many nurses from the EU wish to remain in the UK but not at the expense of being unable to retain their full rights to return home. In the absence of the paper on immigration which we have been promised, it is not surprising that some NHS staff from Europe are considering returning to their homelands earlier than planned.
Therefore, I believe that if the other House supports the deal on offer, we should accept this decision and move towards the next phase of our negotiations secure in the knowledge that we have at least two years to reach long-term solutions to the UK’s future relationship with the EU. However, under no circumstances would a no-deal Brexit guarantee protecting the health of our nations. I will therefore support the Leader of the Opposition’s Motion to ensure that we do not have a hard Brexit.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. We have had a long day and I have been given a very short straw. I want to make three points but before I do so I should declare an interest. I voted for Brexit with terrific enthusiasm. As I thought back, the first time I ever debated publicly in favour of Brexit was with Sir Christopher Soames when he was a European Commissioner back in the 1970s. At least I have a track record of some consistency.
In a debate such as this, we can easily become bogged down in the technicalities of economic forecasts or legal protocols. If I had been asked to a make a speech such as this pre the referendum, it would have been a very different kind of speech. It would have been very gung-ho in putting a strong case for Brexit.
However, I have been profoundly impressed by the referendum. It gave a voice to people. They spoke loudly and clearly, and it exposed the deep divisions in our society—on which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke eloquently this morning. These divisions will not be solved by the technicalities of customs unions, tariffs and so on; they go much deeper. When the Prime Minister says of Brexit that we are taking back our borders, our laws and our money, that is a vision of the kind of society we want to be; it is not just about the technicalities of trade and economics.
It would be a terrible mistake if we did not realise that, in this move, we are handing something on to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Therefore, the debate must have breadth. It is about society, culture and our values—about being at one with ourselves as a society as well as where we go economically. It needs a long time horizon. We are doing something which has at least a 50-year time horizon.
One thing that I have missed in the debate, not least from people who would be pro Brexit, is a sense of hope. What we do must give hope for the average person in Britain that their future can be better than the past.
The worst option that we now have—I hate to say it because it seems as if I am attacking political opponents when I am not; I say it because I really believe it—is a second referendum or a people’s vote. The vote was constitutional; it was approved by both Houses. It was a simple question. The rules regarding the result were known in advance. There was a clear majority. No election or referendum that I have taken part in ever exposed all the potential questions connected with it, and this was no different. A new referendum would undermine trust. Already the political class of which we are part is discredited. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York was reported in the press as saying—he was after all a High Court judge in the country of his birth—such a lack of trust leads to a permanent loss of confidence in political institutions and the road to civil unrest and violence.
I make my third point with a slightly heavy heart. I have been very critical of the Prime Minister. Yet, as I look at the alternatives, I see that all of them involve risk. Frankly, even if there was a second referendum and we went back into the EU, that would involve risk as well. I have come to feel that the deal is the best we can do at present. It is on the table and it has taken two years to get here. I agree with former civil servants who have said in this House that the civil servants who have been negotiating have integrity. Against that background, I am now strongly in favour of supporting the Prime Minister, even though there are many qualifications that one would want to make. The main advantage as I see it is that we leave the EU. There are risks going forward that we have to face then.
Finally, I would like to give a personal note; I do not often make these. This is the end of the day, but I will go back to the beginning of the day. I do not often make Prayers in this House. During the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle’s Prayers this morning—the two psalms that we read, and the prayers, which were followed by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury—I was particularly struck by them saying that our prayers are real. I was struck by our praying, first, to lay aside prejudices—that really hit me between the eyes—secondly, for wisdom greater than our own; and thirdly, that we should have above all, as we approach the subject, humility.