House of Commons
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Business before Questions
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
At 31 March this year, there were just over 75,000 looked- after children in England, 4% up on the previous year following a small fall in the number entering care, but also a decrease in the number leaving.
Lucy Allan
Does the Secretary of State agree that if funding for family support and early intervention was ring-fenced, that would reduce the number of children subject to expensive statutory intervention and care proceedings?
Damian Hinds
I understand why my hon. Friend makes that point. It is important that authorities should have flexibility in managing their budgets in line with local priorities, but I also very much agree that early-help services have a really important role to play in promoting the welfare of children and supporting them in achieving better outcomes.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State review the amount of resources put per family to support the birth mother around raising their children? We have had so many cases in York where children have been taken into care or for adoption because of a lack of resources reported by the local authority.
Damian Hinds
We do believe that in most cases it is right for the child to be with their parents and that they should be taken into care only as a last resort. We are putting resources into local authorities to help with that, but money is tight—I totally recognise that—and that is why we are seeking always to improve processes, including by some of our partners in practical innovation programmes.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for appointing a children’s commissioner to Northamptonshire. Why did he feel it necessary to effect such an appointment, and how quickly does he expect results to be realised?
Damian Hinds
Of course, the safety of children must always be paramount, and we consider it to be the right approach, in the circumstances in Northamptonshire, to do that. These things do not all change overnight in terms of systems and processes, but we do expect to see good progress.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Seventy-three per cent. of children’s residential care providers are now run purely for profit. Alongside this, Ofsted has reported a rise in serious enforcement action against providers with regard to safeguarding concerns, poor use of physical restraint, children going missing, and children at high risk of sexual exploitation. How much longer will the right hon. Gentleman preside over the commodification of vulnerable children, and how many children’s residential homes has he visited in his time as Secretary of State?
Damian Hinds
I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s characterisation of what she called commoditisation. A variety of providers are operating in children’s residential placements, and we expect the very highest standards of care for those children. That is why the Ofsted inspections are as they are.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
Social mobility is one of our top priorities, and we have seen the attainment gap for disadvantaged pupils narrow at all levels, from pre-school to university entrance.
Nigel Huddleston
My Mid Worcestershire constituency is one of many rural constituencies that received a disappointingly low ranking in the latest social mobility index. The fairer funding formula will help, but what else will the Department do to close the gap in social mobility between rural and urban areas?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right to identify the issue in rural areas. It is encouraging that the number of good or outstanding schools in his constituency is up from 37 to 41 since 2010, but he is correct that rural areas can face distinct barriers. Through the opportunity areas programme, among other things, we will see what else we can learn to assist social mobility in rural areas.
Scott Mann
Recent Policy Exchange research shows that poor behaviour is holding back learning and driving teachers out of the profession. Does the Secretary of State agree that if we drive out that poor behaviour, we can give every child a chance to climb the ladder?
Damian Hinds
Yes, indeed. Classrooms must be safe, calm and stimulating places for both children and teachers. The Policy Exchange report highlights what the best-performing schools do. We recently pledged £10 million to help share best practice in behaviour management, which we know is so important to teachers.
Damian Hinds
I welcome the IFS report. We want a country with maximum opportunity for everybody, regardless of their background. The IFS report identifies how reforms since 2010 have increased funding in favour of pupils from poorer backgrounds. That is part of starting to redress the balance and ensure that there are no limits on any child’s potential.
Fiona Bruce
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways to give children a good start in life is for them to be brought up in a stable and loving home? What is the Department doing to strengthen family relationships in this country?
Damian Hinds
I agree with my hon. Friend that strong families can help social mobility and so much else. Our reform programme, “Putting children first”, aims to ensure that vulnerable children and families receive high-quality support as soon as need is identified.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
As today’s shocking research from the National Education Union shows, one simple step that could help the most disadvantaged children is providing them with a healthy meal. It is more than two years since the Government committed to a healthy schools rating system. When will they act?
Damian Hinds
I am glad that the hon. Lady mentions the issue of providing meals for children at school. We have done a great deal on breakfast, and we have also extended eligibility for free school meals on three different occasions—in a way the Labour party never did when it was in government—through universal infant free school meals, free meals in further education colleges and, most recently, the roll-out of universal credit.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
In 2015, I set up the Liverpool to Oxbridge collaborative, to encourage more students from schools in my constituency to apply to Oxford or Cambridge. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the 19 students who have had interviews this month at either Oxford or Cambridge and have been part of that scheme? Will his Department work with me to encourage other areas of the country, particularly those with high levels of deprivation and poverty, to adopt similar schemes?
Damian Hinds
I am delighted to do so on both counts. I commend the hon. Gentleman for his work in this area. Encouraging young people to aim higher—whether that is to Oxford, Cambridge or other universities, or into professions—is very worthwhile, and I certainly join him in what he says.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Damian Hinds
The framework that the hon. Lady mentions is, among other things, there to protect students studying at colleges. FE colleges have a central role to play in our system, particularly as we develop the apprenticeships programme and bring in T-levels.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The same NEU report shows that more children will be going hungry this winter than ever before, in the experience of most teachers. Is that helping or hindering social mobility?
Damian Hinds
I am pleased to be able to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we have record levels of employment, which have helped to contribute to record levels of household income. We have brought in the national living wage and brought in tax cuts for millions of people—all to help to support working families’ household budgets.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Given that many apprentices are from disadvantaged backgrounds, will my right hon. Friend make sure that the apprenticeship levy is fit for purpose? A lot of employers are rebadging and retraining senior employees, and denying new apprentices the chance to do apprenticeships. Will he confirm that there is a £500 million overspend on the apprenticeship levy budget?
Damian Hinds
I can confirm to my right hon. Friend that it is of course very important that we continue to monitor the way in which the apprenticeship levy works. We have committed to having a review, and we will work with businesses on how it works after 2020 to make sure that young people, but also older people or people who are further into their careers, can benefit from this programme.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
According to UCAS figures, the number of young Scots from deprived backgrounds gaining a place at university is at an all-time high—firm proof that the Scottish Government’s policy of free tuition is working. Rather than become involved in creative accounting with student loans, will the Secretary of State now follow Scotland’s lead in improving social mobility, and scrap tuition fees?
Damian Hinds
The picture that the hon. Lady paints of the higher education sector in Scotland—it of course features many very high quality higher education institutions—is not the same one on admissions, I have to say, that I hear from everybody. I am pleased to be able to confirm that in England we have a record number and proportion of young people going on to university.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
The Social Mobility Commission’s recent survey revealed a deep unease at the gap between the rich and poor, with the public believing that the Government, employers and schools are not doing enough. The Secretary of State’s response to this urgent problem is to make £2 million available for more research, but there is still no concrete plan of action. Can he tell us exactly how much of the £2 million will be spent on the most important time for social mobility—the early years—and will it investigate the impact on the poorest children being locked out of 30 hours of free childcare?
Damian Hinds
The concern that the hon. Lady mentions is a concern shared by me—I want to go further and faster on social mobility—but I am not quite sure where she gets the idea that the social mobility strategy consists of the research budget of the Social Mobility Commission. Social mobility is at the heart of everything that we do, and we see it in the narrowing of the attainment gap in nursery school, in primary school, in secondary school, in the attainment of level 2 maths and English by age 19 and in university admissions.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
Lancashire produced a written statement of action, which Ofsted has assessed as fit for purpose. Advisers from the Department and NHS England are now monitoring and supporting the implementation of the written statement of action. Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission will revisit the area in early 2020 to assess progress.
Rosie Cooper
Will the Minister indicate what funding is being made available to Lancashire County Council, for example through the high needs block of the dedicated schools grant, to enable it to fix the failings outlined in the Ofsted report, given that Lancashire County Council is already £10 million overspent and it is estimated that there is an overspend in this area of half a billion nationally?
Nadhim Zahawi
Yesterday, we announced that local authorities will receive an additional £250 million of high needs funding over two years, plus £100 million of capital funding to make more places available. That will take our total spend per annum on high needs funding to over £6 billion.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
That answer shows that the Minister has his head in the sand. In addition to what is happening in Lancashire, new research for the Local Government Association shows that by 2020-21 there will be a potential £1.6 billion gap in funding for special educational needs and disabilities nationally. Given that there is no new money, according to what the Secretary of State said on the television at the weekend, when will the Government ensure that children with SEND are able to access the education they deserve?
Nadhim Zahawi
This is new money—£250 million plus £100 million for capital spending—from the underspend in the Department. The additional funding will help local authorities and schools with the increasing costs of provision for some of our most vulnerable children and young people. I think it is a shame that the Opposition are scaremongering in this way with the most vulnerable families in our society.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
The dedication of teachers along with our reforms has seen the proportion of good or outstanding secondary schools increase from 64% to 75%, in terms of the pupils in them, between 2010 and 2018.
Andrew Bridgen
Unlike the vast majority of senior schools, most of my constituency still operates a middle and upper school system. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the all-through education model is better for raising standards and preferable to pupils having to move school only five terms before they take their GCSE exams? Will he do everything in his power to assist schools in North West Leicestershire that want to transition to the 11-to-16 model?
Damian Hinds
These decisions are best made at a local level in the light of the local circumstances, but to support schools that decide to change their age range, we publish online guidance for maintained schools and academies on the process involved. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
During the recent Education Committee inquiry, we heard from many businesses and experts about how the current UK curriculum is taking us in the wrong direction. They said that it is about regurgitating knowledge rather than equipping young people with skills—communication skills, and the ability to do projects, science practicals and so on. Does the Secretary of State agree or disagree with those people?
Damian Hinds
If parents, employers and others heard us suggesting that there was some sort of conflict between knowledge and skills, they would despair. People need both when they come out of school. The development of skills is in many ways about knowing how to deploy knowledge. We believe that a knowledge-rich curriculum is incredibly important and helps to develop the skills that young people need for the world of work—and, indeed, for life.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that, if we are to continue to raise standards in schools, it is important that schools funding is given a high priority in next year’s spending review?
Damian Hinds
Indeed. Schools, and education more broadly, are a unique case in our national life because they are all about bringing up the next generation and social mobility, and ensuring that our economy works at its full productive potential.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Ofsted has proved to be one of the most effective regulators in the country, but with cuts of almost 50%, inspections are too short and inspection teams are too small, and many schools simply do not get the inspections they need—some should require improvement or be in special measures and are not; and some good schools should be outstanding but are not. Will the Secretary of State commit to putting more resource into Ofsted so that parents can have faith that their schools are delivering for their students?
Damian Hinds
I have faith in the Ofsted system, which is an incredibly important part of our system alongside performance measures and so on. It is a vital part of what parents use to select their school. The new Ofsted framework, which is due to come in next year, is a further opportunity to develop that, but we want a proportionate system.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
The Government’s industrial strategy specifically targets STEM shortage skills. Between 2012 and 2018, entries to A-level maths rose by 25%. It is now the most popular A-level. Exam entries for GCSE computer science have increased from 2013, when it was first examined, from just over 4,000 to more than 70,000 in 2018. That is in part down to the £7.2 million funding that is going into maths hubs. A number of programmes have given STEM a real drive in schools and further education.1
Luke Graham
I recently co-hosted a STEM workshop in Crieff High School in my constituency with the support of the Royal Navy. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to talk about what education opportunities we can provide across the United Kingdom working with educational institutions, the Ministry of Defence, the Department for International Development and the National Citizen Service?
Anne Milton
Well done to Crieff High School, the NCS, DFID and the Royal Navy. There is no doubt that weaving education into life jobs and everything we do with young people is how we get results. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend any time.
Antoinette Sandbach
When I visit STEM businesses in my constituency, I often ask how many of their apprentices are women. They say that there are not enough coming through the pipeline, the same excuse for why they do not have female directors. What is the Minister doing to increase the take-up by women and girls of STEM subjects?
Anne Milton
My hon. Friend is right that, without doubt, gender stereotypes affect what young girls do. Those stereotypes are changing because we are making sure that we change them. For instance, since 2010 we have seen 26% more women entering STEM A-levels. However, we recognise that the take-up for physics is notably low and we have put money into the Stimulating Physics Network. I praise hon. Members who have taken part in the Year of Engineering. We know that at primary school girls and boys have similar levels of interest in STEM subjects, but that that tails off quite substantially at secondary school. We are doing research to understand that better.[Official Report, 20 December 2018, Vol. 651, c. 5MC.]
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Students from Coleg Gwent had great success recently at the WorldSkills UK competition, including a gold in forensic science, which is a great advert for taking up STEM subjects. Will the Minister join me in congratulating all Welsh students and colleges who did fantastically well across the board in that UK-wide competition?
Anne Milton
Yes, I am very happy to join the hon. Lady in congratulating them. Right hon. and hon. Members who do not know anything about WorldSkills should take a look—it is fantastic. I am disappointed that the Scottish Government have chosen not to put in any money, despite its success. WorldSkills is a way of showcasing exactly what young people can achieve.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I was about to thank the Minister for her positive comments about STEM, however I should point out that the Scottish Government properly fund further education. STEM careers are still not attracting enough young people and we have a continuing need to tap into Europe’s talent streams. Does the Minister share my concern that limited uptake of STEM subjects, now coupled with potential restrictions on EU nationals based on salary, is a serious issue? What discussions has she had with the Home Secretary on keeping the EU talent pipeline open?
Anne Milton
It is extremely important that we use talent from wherever it comes. I reiterate that I am disappointed at the Scottish Government for refusing my invitation to put some money into WorldSkills. This is an opportunity to boost engineering careers and choices, particularly for women. I am disappointed in the Scottish Government’s attitude.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
There are 1.9 million more pupils in good or outstanding schools compared with 2010 and we are on track to create 1 million places this decade. That compares with a loss of 100,000 places in the six years up to 2010.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
A badly planned new housing development is putting enormous strain on school places in my constituency, particularly primary places. We have a new school that will open in 2019, but the funding process through the Education and Skills Funding Agency has been very elongated and bureaucratic. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could say how the process can be simplified, so that in future we can ensure that the supply of good new school places matches the demand in areas where there is new development.
Damian Hinds
I thank my hon. Friend for his support on the Lower Farm primary academy. The Department is always looking for ways to improve our processes, driving efficiency and value. That now includes the establishment of a specialist property company and the use of modern construction methods to help to build schools faster. I am very grateful to him for his helpful feedback.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I am deeply concerned that schools are using isolation rooms as a form of unregistered exclusion for pupils for extended periods of time, thereby severely harming their education. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of how good the education is that is received by the children forced into using them?
Damian Hinds
We think it is up to headteachers, within the rules, to set the behaviour policy in their schools. They have to set it out clearly in their behaviour policy, on which there are clear guidelines.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend welcome the rising percentage of good and outstanding places in special schools, meaning that no matter what challenges someone faces, real opportunities are on offer for all?
Damian Hinds
I do welcome that. As part of yesterday’s announcement, we also said that we would take off the cap on the current round of special and alternative provision free school applications and approve the full set that met the criteria.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Good school places include good school music teaching, but headteachers tell me that they cannot afford to provide high-quality music education, which flows into a lack of access to tertiary places. We have more international students studying at tertiary level than we do our domestic students in some cases. Will the Government urgently review the provision of high-quality music education, so that every child, regardless of their region, background, skin colour or religion, can study music at our wonderful universities?
Damian Hinds
I agree with the hon. Lady about the essential importance of music. That is one reason why music is the second most financially supported subject in our school system, after PE. We have invested £300 million in funding for music hubs and other music programmes between 2016 and 2020.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Local authorities are responsible for air quality and must ensure that it meets the standards set in local air quality action plans. If there was concern about the air quality in a school building, it would fall to the body responsible for the school to check that and establish what measures needed to be taken to improve air quality.
Mr Sheerman
Will the Minister and the Government take air pollution in our country and the effect that it has on children’s brains far more seriously? A target of doing something about air pollution in our country by 2040 is not good enough. The research evidence shows that children’s brains are being affected now and more so in homes where incomes are lower and in ethnic minority homes.
Nick Gibb
The Government take the safety of pupils extremely seriously. We recently published technical guidance on air quality in schools. This takes into account the latest developments in air quality management and monitoring to support the design of new schools, and it promotes best practice and covers air quality as a matter of controlling both external and internal pollutants and setting maximum standards for levels of pollutants in classrooms.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Minister will know that a controversial housing development on the A27, one of the busiest roads in the south-east, includes plans for a new school. Local air pollution monitoring equipment does not even work. Does he not think that it is crazy to put a new school right next to such a busy road and should that not be a planning consideration when locating schools in future?
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
OECD data shows that the UK spends as much per pupil on state school education as any major economy in the world, apart from the United States. However we cut the data, the UK is among the highest spenders, and that is also true when we look at expenditure as a share of GDP.
Peter Heaton-Jones
I thank the Minister for that answer, and I welcome the work that he is doing to ensure that we compare well internationally, but will he continue to work with me to ensure that that funding is equitably distributed within England? I am thinking particularly of a fairer share for places such as Devon.
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend fights hard for the interests of the schools in his constituency, as I know at first hand from the schools that he has invited me to visit and the headteachers to whom he has introduced me at round-table discussions that he has organised on school funding. He will know, therefore, that under the fairer national funding formula, Devon will gain £13.6 million for its schools by 2019-20, rising from £382 million to £396 million in 2019.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
The Education Committee is conducting an inquiry into special educational needs and disability funding and provision. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that improving SEND support would go a long way to helping give schools financial breathing space, given the extent that it impinges on schools’ core budgets?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. High needs funding for children and young people with more complex SEN has risen by more than £1 billion since 2013. It is now £6 billion. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday, there will be another £125 million this year and another £125 million next year for high needs.
Mr Speaker
I gently exhort the Minister of State to face the House so that we can all benefit from his mellifluous tones.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
The level of educational funding will be radically affected by the new treatment of public sector pensions. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s policy to cover the majority of costs for schools and colleges, but not for universities, and explain the different treatment?
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
The Government’s ambition is that 90% of pupils will study the EBacc combination of GCSEs, including a foreign language, by 2025. We offer generous financial incentives to recruit more language teachers, and we have introduced the Mandarin excellence programme and modern foreign languages—MFL—teaching hubs to increase languages take-up and to support schools to improve the quality of foreign languages teaching.
Jamie Stone
I thank the Minister for his answer. One way to stimulate learning foreign languages in our schools is by using foreign exchange students. Indeed, in my school days, a charming French lady greatly stimulated my knowledge of the language. I am not a member of the governing party in Scotland. I therefore ask whether Her Majesty’s Government will do everything they can to continue using exchange students and to build on that in future.
Mr Speaker
I think the whole House would digest the hon. Gentleman’s personal memoir. We are indebted to him for it.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The Europa School in my constituency teaches languages by teaching other subjects in foreign languages. Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is proving popular with parents of all types, including from the UK, and that it is a good model to follow?
Nick Gibb
I share my hon. Friend’s admiration for the Europa School. It teaches the European baccalaureate, which is of a very high standard. The continuation of that qualification will depend on discussions with the European Schools system after the UK leaves the European Union.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
There has been a significant contraction in the post-16 modern languages curriculum as a result of the significant funding cut. Funding has been frozen since 2013-14. Is it not time to raise the rate so that that curriculum can get back to where it should be?
Nick Gibb
To make A-level foreign languages classes viable, we need more sixth formers to opt for the subjects. To raise the uptake of A-level, we first need to increase the number of pupils who take a GCSE in a foreign language, reversing the damage caused by the last Labour Government in 2004, when they downgraded the importance of languages.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend may recall that schools used to teach Latin to give a better understanding of English grammar. Does he agree that German, Spanish and Italian give a better understanding of grammar than French? When will we get some teachers of those languages?
Nick Gibb
Of course, we need all those European languages, as well as Mandarin and other languages, to be taught in our secondary schools. Since 2010, there has been an increase from 40% of the cohort taking a GCSE in a foreign language to 46% this year. However, we need to go further, which is why we have the target of 90% studying the EBacc combination of GCSEs by 2025.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Non, nee and nein are among the European words the Prime Minister has learned this week, but a generation of children is being denied the same opportunity, with nearly 20,000 fewer hours of modern languages taught in secondary schools now compared with 2010. The decline is particularly stark in German and French. Will the Minister commit today to reversing that trend, or is it only the Prime Minister who is being taught a lesson?
Nick Gibb
I must say, it is rich for Opposition Members to criticise the reduction in modern foreign language teaching. It was their Government—the Labour Government, in 2004—who downgraded the importance of foreign languages, and we are trying to reverse that. We have increased the proportion of young people studying a foreign language from 40% in 2010 to 46% this year, and we want to go further.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
Social workers do an invaluable job in protecting the most vulnerable children and families in our society. We are improving initial education standards, and providing professional development at key stages throughout a social worker’s career. A new independent regulator, Social Work England, will have a strong focus on better standards, while the national assessment and accreditation system will provide additional confidence in the quality of practice.
Mr Goodwill
The independent regulator will help to raise still further the already high standards of practice in social work. Does the Minister agree that social workers who achieve accreditation status should also earn the right to put some initials after their names—for example, ASW, standing for “accredited social worker”?
Nadhim Zahawi
My right hon. Friend is right to point out that the national assessment and accreditation system is a critical means of embedding high standards in the social work profession. We are currently in phase 1, and more than 100 social workers have been accredited so far. We will be considering questions like my right hon. Friend’s during the national roll-out.
Alex Burghart
Initiatives such as Step Up to Social Work and Frontline have done a very good job in bringing high-qualities graduates into the profession, but what is the Department doing to encourage better continuing professional development for those who are already in the workforce?
Nadhim Zahawi
Continuing professional development is crucial to high-quality social work. The Department funds it through the assessed and supported year in employment for new social workers, and an aspiring practice leaders programme. This autumn we launched a programme for more than 1,000 people moving into supervisory roles.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said that early help services delivered by social workers were vital. What assessment has he made of the proposals to abolish 90 social work jobs in Derbyshire—where the number of children in care has risen by 50% in the last five years—and to transfer the early help service to schools?
Nadhim Zahawi
In the Budget we announced a further £410 million for local authorities to invest in adults’ and children’s social care services in 2019-20. We also announced £84 million to scale up good practice from, for instance, Leeds, Hertfordshire and North Yorkshire to 20 other local authorities. We hope that places such as Derbyshire will look at those models and scale up that good practice.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I know that the Minister will want to join me in congratulating Frontline not just on bringing 1,000 people into the profession, but on elevating the status of social work. Does he recognise, however, that notwithstanding the additional investment to which he has just referred, unless we deal effectively with the funding crisis facing children’s social services, we will not be able to keep and promote those people who do such wonderful work in keeping children and young people safe and well?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman has made an important point about funding. We are working with the sector, and with the Local Government Association, to ensure that we are in a good place for the spending review.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
It is good to be back at the Dispatch Box.
The most recent assessment of the living costs of English-domiciled full-time and part-time undergraduates was the 2014-15 student income and expenditure survey, which found that the average living costs of full-time undergraduates were about £7,000.
Afzal Khan
According to a recent report in the Huffington Post, the living costs of students in Manchester have rocketed by 37% in the last 10 years. Cost should not be a barrier to accessing the country’s best universities, such as the University of Manchester. What is the Minister doing to encourage universities to keep students’ costs affordable?
Chris Skidmore
Students who started their courses in the current academic year have had access to the highest ever funding levels to support their living costs. We now have a system of support that targets those from the lowest-income families, who need it the most. A record number of 18-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds went to university this year, 68% more than in 2009.[Official Report, 20 December 2018, Vol. 651, c. 6MC.]
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
As a fellow historian, I warmly congratulate the Minister on his appointment, although I am afraid that he arrives to a perfect storm for students, battered by high tuition fees and extortionate interest, with evidence now piling up from freedom of information requests—the latest in The Huffington Post report that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) has just referred to—that many are unable to cope with spiralling accommodation costs in London and other cities. Yet recent questions I put to the Department on what it is doing about this got the answer that it was not a Government issue. On the day we are told that the London Business School head gets a half a million pound a year package, is it not appalling that students at his and other HE institutions are being brushed off like this? Will the Minister make this a priority for his in-tray?
Chris Skidmore
The hon. Gentleman and I have a mutual interest in history, particularly the reign of Henry VII, and I hope that we can continue to be civil in our conversations on HE funding, but I reiterate on the loan package that we have seen not only a 10.3% increase compared with the previous grant system in 2016-17 but in November a further 2.8% increase, which means there is currently a maximum loan of £8,944. On accommodation costs, I am interested in looking in particular at the private rented sector. We have been working with the British Property Federation to develop advice on protocols that will encourage collaborative working between universities and private providers. I do want to go further and I hope that we can work together to look at this issue.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
A programme of local area inspections is under way to ensure that the SEND reforms are being implemented effectively and weaknesses addressed. Yesterday, we announced an additional £250 million to local authorities for higher needs budgets to support those with more complex needs across this year and next. The core schools and higher needs budget will increase from almost £41 billion in 2017-18 to £43.5 billion in 2019-20.
Debbie Abrahams
Although the additional funding is welcome, I am sure that the Minister recognises the absolute crisis in support for children with special educational needs and disabilities and the absolute desperation that the parents who are taking legal action on this very matter feel, so will he announce an early new year resolution to plug the gap—estimated to be £1.6 billion by 2020, which these children will need?
Nadhim Zahawi
I attended the conference that the Parents and Carers Network held in Coventry. It is important to listen to the sector. Many local authorities are co-creating their SEND provision with parents, and it is important that we listen and deliver the £250 million additional funding announced yesterday, and of course the £100 million in capital funding as well, taking the funding to over £6 billion per annum on SEND students. I know you take a great interest in this matter, Mr Speaker, as well.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Nadhim Zahawi
I commend the school for taking the initiative to provide its pupils with the opportunity to learn skills for the workplace in a safe environment. I hope that Mr Pollitt will share that excellent practice with other educational professionals and explore the possibility of running supported internships as well.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
In the last two weeks, I have set out the next steps in our major upgrade of technical education. We have announced additional funding for high needs budgets, plus capital funding and enhanced training and commissioning, and we have had confirmed a further narrowing of the attainment gap at primary school. We are striving for a world-class education for everyone, whatever their background and roots, and as we approach the end of the Christmas term, as ever our thanks and appreciation go to the 450,000 dedicated teachers and all the other professionals who make education in our country live.
Mike Amesbury
Last week, it was confirmed that teachers and students at Sir John Deane’s sixth-form college in my constituency and elsewhere will lose out yet again following the confirmation that the national funding rate for sixth formers will remain at £4,000 per student next year. That is the seventh consecutive year that funding has been frozen. How can the Secretary of State claim that austerity is over?
Damian Hinds
It is true that five-to-16 education funding in this country has been protected since 2010 and that that pledge did not apply to sixth forms. Yes, funding has been tight for sixth forms and that is one of the things we will consider when looking at future funding.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
The first three T-levels—digital and construction in particular—are on track for teaching from 2020, and we have recently announced seven more for introduction in 2021. This is the way we build skills—by making sure that pre-16 and post-16 education gives young people the drive, desire and ambition to succeed at whatever level. The industry is a critical component of T-levels, and this will be an ideal opportunity for local employers to build local skills.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Over the weekend, the former Universities Minister, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), suggested that the Prime Minister was not acting in the national interest. On that theme, the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) has said:
“I was in strong disagreement with keeping foreign students in the immigration cap. The sooner it is dropped, the better.”
I am glad that he agrees with us on that. We have been told to expect the immigration White Paper later this week. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether it will finally take students out of the migration target, allowing the Government to find at least one policy that the majority of this House and indeed the country can support?
Damian Hinds
I fear that the hon. Lady is mistaken. Our higher education sector rightly attracts students from around the world, thanks to its great quality, and we want to grow the number of students coming to our universities. There is no limit on the number of students who can come to our universities. I think she is referring to the statistical measurement, which is an international measurement that defines people who come to this country for more than 12 months as being in the immigration statistics, but of course, when they leave again, they count as minus 1 in those statistics.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Mr Speaker
I would have thought that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) strongly disapproved of the very creation of the mobile phone in the first place.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
We have made £60 million available to maintained nursery schools up to 2020 because of the excellent provision that they deliver. My message, and that of the Secretary of State, to local authorities is not to take any decisions until we get to the spending review.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about a creeping culture of censorship taking hold on some of our university campuses?
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
The Government are deeply committed to protecting freedom of speech in higher education. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and key partners in the higher education sector worked with the previous Universities Minister—to whom I pay tribute as a friend and colleague—to develop a single piece of guidance that will set out key principles. This will enable universities and student unions to understand their obligations to protect and support free speech, which must happen in our universities.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Chris Skidmore
Delivering an EU deal is the Government’s top priority, and we do not want a no-deal scenario. However, a responsible Government should prepare for every eventuality, including the possibility of no deal. We have already guaranteed the rights of EU residents in the UK by 29 March 2019, and we are calling on EU member states to do the same for UK nationals. For education, that will mean that they have broadly the same entitlements to work, study and access to public services and benefits as now. In addition, the Government have made an underwrite guarantee that will cover all committed payments to UK participants in programmes such as the European social fund and Erasmus Plus.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Schools Minister will be aware of the concerns in Torbay schools around the consultation on the high needs funding formula, so we welcome the additional funding announced yesterday. Will he confirm whether the indicative amounts per council will be published?
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Yes, I can confirm that the allocations to local authorities from the £125 million that the Secretary of State announced yesterday will be published imminently.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Chris Skidmore
As I have already stated, the Government are committed to ensuring that we have a deal with the European Union. A deal will ensure that we have stability and security going forward after 29 March 2019, but we have also committed to putting in place protections to ensure that our HE institutions are protected under a no-deal scenario.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating the fabulous University Centre Somerset, part of Bridgwater & Taunton College, on being awarded centre of the year in the Lion awards for innovation across the centre in learning, vocational courses and apprenticeships? It is a phenomenal establishment.
Anne Milton
I will happily join my hon. Friend in congratulating that institution. What a wonderful story it is. Apprenticeships are how we ensure that young people have opportunities that would otherwise not be open to them.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
A fortnight ago, I was delighted to visit Tresham College in Corby to meet many of its brilliant engineering apprentices. Would my right hon. Friend be willing to join me on another visit to share in that success? What is being done to promote such opportunities more widely?
Anne Milton
I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend on a visit to Corby. We are seeing the success that he describes right across the country. It is an awful shame that Opposition Members do not join us in congratulating good colleges on the work that they do.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Two grammar schools in Walsall have benefited from the selective schools expansion fund, but does the Minister endorse the work that they are doing to improve access for disadvantaged children?
Damian Hinds
Yes. The selective schools expansion fund was targeted precisely at ensuring that grammar schools that do not yet admit enough pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds and on free schools meals are encouraged to admit such pupils. I have been very encouraged by the applications that we have seen from the 16 successful schools, and I look forward to seeing accessibility increase.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Anne Milton
Some £500 million is going into T-levels as they are rolled out in 2020. I have got a grip, as has the Secretary of State, and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we have put considerable funding into FE. I am very aware of the challenges it faces, which is why we are looking at the resilience of the FE sector right now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Some 3,000 parents have signed a petition against King Edward VI School’s policy now of attracting students by catchment area, rather than by the 11-plus. What is my right hon. Friend’s view of the petition?
Damian Hinds
I think it is right that parents are consulted on these important matters, but I also think it is important that our selective schools and grammar schools, which are very popular with parents, should also be extending their reach and making sure they are accessible to a wider group of pupils.
Several hon. Members rose—
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Despite the Government’s warm words, headteachers tell me that they do not have enough money for children with special needs. What comfort can the Secretary of State give to the headteachers of maintained schools in my constituency of Bristol West that children with special educational needs will have the funding they need in 2019?
Damian Hinds
I recognise the issues on the tightness of funding for special needs, which is one of the reasons why yesterday we announced the package that includes not only additional revenue funding but provision for more capital funding towards facilities, for more places, for more training for educational psychologists and for making sure that all teachers have the support and training they need.
European Council
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s European Council. But before turning to Brexit, let me touch on two significant conclusions from the other business of the Council.
First, we expressed our utmost concern over the escalation we have seen at the Kerch strait and the sea of Azov, and over Russia’s continued violations of international law. We agreed to roll over economic sanctions against Russia, and we stand ready further to strengthen our support, in particular for the affected areas of Ukraine. Secondly, we also agreed to work together on tackling the spread of deliberate, large-scale and systematic disinformation, including as part of hybrid warfare. On this I outlined some of the world-leading work that the UK is doing in this field. And I was clear that, after we have left the European Union, the UK will continue to work closely with our European partners to uphold the international rules-based system and to keep all our people safe. That is why it is right that our Brexit deal includes the deepest security partnership that has ever been agreed with the EU.
At this Council, I faithfully and firmly reflected the concerns of this House over the Northern Ireland backstop. I explained that the assurances we have already agreed with the EU were insufficient for this House, and that we have to go further in showing that we never want to use this backstop, and if it is used, it must be a temporary arrangement. Some of the resulting exchanges at this Council were robust, but I make no apology for standing up for the interests of this House and the interests of our whole United Kingdom.
In response, the EU27 published a series of conclusions making it clear that it is their
“firm determination to work speedily on a subsequent agreement that establishes by 31 December 2020 alternative arrangements, so that the backstop will not need to be triggered.”
The House will forgive me, but I think this bears repeating: the backstop will not need to be triggered. The conclusions underline that
“if the backstop were nevertheless to be triggered, it would apply temporarily”,
And that in this event, the EU
“would use its best endeavours to negotiate and conclude expeditiously a subsequent agreement that would replace the backstop”.
And the EU27 gave a new assurance, in relation to the future partnership with the UK, to make it even less likely that the backstop would ever be needed by stating that the EU
“stands ready to embark on preparations immediately after signature of the Withdrawal Agreement to ensure that negotiations can start as soon as possible after the UK’s withdrawal.”
In these conclusions, in their statements at the Council and in their private meetings with me, my fellow EU leaders could not have been clearer: they do not want to use this backstop. They want to agree the best possible future relationship with us. There is no plot to keep us in the backstop. Indeed, President Macron said on Friday that:
“we can clarify and reassure...the backstop is not our objective, it is not a durable solution and nobody is trying to lock the UK into the backstop.'”
As formal conclusions from a European Council, these commitments have legal status and should be welcomed. They go further than the EU has ever done previously in trying to address the concerns of this House. And of course they sit on top of the commitments that we have already negotiated in relation to the backstop, including ensuring that the customs element is UK-wide; that both sides are legally committed to using best endeavours to have our new relationship in place before the end of the implementation period; that if the new relationship is not ready, we can choose to extend the implementation period instead of the backstop coming into force; that if the backstop does come in, we can use alternative arrangements, not just the future relationship, to get out of it; that the treaty is clear the backstop can only ever be temporary; and that there is an explicit termination clause.
However, I know this House is still deeply uncomfortable about the backstop—I understand that, and I want us to go further still in the reassurances we secure. Discussions with my EU partners, including Presidents Tusk and Juncker, and others, have shown that further clarification following the Council’s conclusions is, in fact, possible. So discussions are continuing to explore further political and legal assurances. We are also looking closely at new ways of empowering the House of Commons to ensure that any provision for a backstop has democratic legitimacy—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. This is very irregular. The statement must be heard. There will be a full opportunity for exchanges, but the statement by the Prime Minister must be heard and heard with courtesy.
The Prime Minister
We are looking at new ways of empowering the House of Commons to ensure that any provision for a backstop has democratic legitimacy and enabling the House to place its own obligations on the Government to ensure that the backstop cannot be in place indefinitely. But it is now only just over 14 weeks until the UK leaves the EU, and I know many Members of this House are concerned that we need to take a decision soon. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will set out business on Thursday in the usual way, but I can confirm today that we intend to return to the meaningful vote debate in the week commencing 7 January and hold the vote the following week.
When we have the vote, Members will need to reflect carefully on what is in the best interests of our country. I know that there are a range of very strongly held personal views on this issue across the House, and I respect all of them. But expressing our personal views is not what we are here to do. We asked the British people to take this decision; 472 current Members of this House voted for the referendum in June 2015, with just 32 voting against. The British people responded by instructing us to leave the European Union. Similarly, 438 current Members of this House voted to trigger article 50, to set the process of our departure in motion, with only 85 of today’s Members voting against. Now we must honour our duty to finish the job.
I know this is not everyone’s perfect deal—it is a compromise—but if we let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we risk leaving the EU with no deal. Of course, we have prepared for no deal, and tomorrow the Cabinet will be discussing the next phase in ensuring we are ready for that scenario. But let us not risk the jobs, services and security of the people we serve by turning our backs on an agreement with our neighbours that honours the referendum and provides for a smooth and orderly exit. Avoiding no deal is only possible if we can reach an agreement or if we abandon Brexit entirely.
As I said in the debate earlier this month, do not imagine that if we vote this down, a different deal is going to miraculously appear. If you want proof, look at the conclusions of this Council. As President Juncker said, it is the “best deal possible” and the “only deal possible”. Any proposal for the future relationship—whether Norway, Canada, or any other variety that has been mentioned—would require agreeing this withdrawal agreement. The Leader of the Opposition and some others are trying to pretend that they could do otherwise. This is a fiction.
Finally, let us not break faith with the British people by trying to stage another referendum—another vote that would do irreparable damage to the integrity our politics, because it—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Many Members of this House, including an illustrious Chair of a Select Committee, are heckling noisily. Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil, you are a cheeky chappy, but we need much less of the cheek and more by way of courtesy in listening to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
Another vote would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics, because it would say to millions who trusted in democracy that our democracy does not deliver. Another vote would likely leave us no further forward than the last, and another vote would further divide our country at the very moment we should be working to unite it. And let us not follow the Leader of the Opposition in thinking about what gives him the best chance of forcing a general election, for at this critical moment in our history we should be thinking not about our party’s interests, but about the national interest. Let us a find a way to come together and work together in the national interest to see this Brexit through.
I will work tirelessly over these new few weeks to fulfil my responsibility as Prime Minister to find a way forwards. Over the past two weeks, I have met quite a number of colleagues on this important issue, and I am happy to continue to do so, so that we can fulfil our responsibilities to the British people so that together we can take back control of our borders, laws and money, while protecting the jobs, security and integrity of our precious United Kingdom; so that together we can move on to finalising the future relationship with the European Union and the trade deals with the rest of the world that can fuel our prosperity for years to come; and so that together we can get this Brexit done and shift the national focus to our domestic priorities: investing in our NHS, our schools and housing, tackling the injustices that so many still face, and building a country that truly works for everyone. For these are the ways in which, together, this House will best serve the interests of the British people. I commend this statement to the House.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of her statement.
On Ukraine, as NATO has said, we need both sides to show restraint and de-escalate, with international law adhered to, including Russia’s allowing unhindered access to Ukraine’s ports on the sea of Azov.
We face an unprecedented situation: the Prime Minister has led us into a national crisis. If any more evidence was needed of why we face this grave situation, the Prime Minister demonstrated it at last week’s summit. There were some warm words drafted, but the Prime Minister even managed to negotiate those away, to be replaced by words about preparing for no deal. The Prime Minister boasted:
“I had a robust discussion with President Juncker”,
but that cannot hide the cold reality that she achieved nothing. Standing at the Dispatch Box last week, the Prime Minister said,
“I have made some progress”.—[Official Report, 12 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 274.]
She has not made any progress at all.
She said so herself while still in Brussels:
“The EU is clear, as am I, that this is the deal.”
The European Commission has been categorical. It said:
“It will not be renegotiated. The European Council has given the clarifications that were possible at this stage, so no further meetings with the UK are foreseen.”
The deal is unchanged and it is not going to change. The House must get on with the vote and move on to consider the realistic alternatives. There can be no logical reason for this delay, except that, in taking shambolic government to a new level, the Prime Minister no longer has the backing of her Cabinet. The International Trade Secretary has suggested that the Prime Minister’s deal no longer has the backing of the Cabinet. It is worth quoting his words. He said:
“I think that it is very difficult to support the deal if we don’t get changes to the backstop. I don’t think it will get through. I am not even sure if the Cabinet will agree for it to be put to the House of Commons.”
We have had the spectacle of the past few days with numerous Cabinet members coming forward with their own alternatives. The International Trade Secretary suggested that a two-year transition to a no deal is an option. The Work and Pensions Secretary says that the Government need “to try something different” and build a consensus in Parliament. The Attorney General is reported as saying that he wants the Prime Minister gone and for the deal to be renegotiated, while the International Development Secretary is allegedly liaising with the European Research Group to launch an alternative option. Others are reportedly working on a second referendum, but if even the Cabinet no longer backs the deal, then who knows what the options would be?
Will the Prime Minister give us some answers? First, does her deal still have the confidence of the Cabinet? Secondly, is Cabinet collective responsibility still in operation? Thirdly, does it remain Government policy to avoid a no-deal outcome? An unacceptable deal is on the table. No amendment has been secured. Renegotiations have been rebuffed and not even mere assurances have been offered. The Prime Minister’s shoddy deal no longer even has the backing of the Cabinet.
The Prime Minister ran away from putting her deal before Parliament, because even her own Cabinet has doubts, and she herself admits that Parliament will not back it, so we are left edging ever closer to the 29 March deadline without a deal and without even an agreed plan in Cabinet to get a deal. The Prime Minister has cynically run down the clock, trying to manoeuvre Parliament into a choice between two unacceptable outcomes: her deal or no deal.
The country, workers and businesses are increasingly anxious. Yesterday, the CBI said:
“Uncertainty is throttling firms and threatening jobs—not in the future but right now.”
The British Chambers of Commerce has said:
“There is no time to waste.”
A responsible Prime Minister would, for the good of this country, put this deal before the House this week so that we can move on from this Government’s disastrous negotiations. This is a constitutional crisis and the Prime Minister is its architect. She is leading the most shambolic and chaotic Government in modern British history; even Cabinet no longer functions. We have a Prime Minister whose authority has been lost, a Cabinet disintegrating into cliques and factions, and a Conservative party so fundamentally split that its very existence is being discussed. It is clear that the Prime Minister has failed to renegotiate her deal and failed to get any meaningful reassurances. There is no excuse for any more dither or delay. This Government have already become the first Government in British history to be held in contempt by Parliament. The debate on the meaningful vote was pulled at the last minute. The Prime Minister has now wasted five weeks having achieved nothing—not a single word renegotiated; not a single reassurance gained. This last week has embodied the failure, chaos and indecision at the heart of the Government’s shambolic handling of Brexit. Today, they have been dragged kicking and screaming to announce a date to restart the debate. It is—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Ellis, you are a distinguished ornament of a Government Department—a representative of the Executive branch. Be good, man; you can do so much better when you try.
Jeremy Corbyn
It is disgraceful that a month will have been wasted since we were due to vote on 11 December. There can be no further attempt to dodge the accountability of Government to this Parliament.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman asked me three questions during his response. Does the deal still have the confidence of the Cabinet? Yes. Does Cabinet collective responsibility still apply? Yes. Does the Cabinet want to avoid no deal? Yes, the Cabinet wants to ensure that we leave the European Union with a good deal, and that is this deal.
The real indecision is the indecision at the heart of a Labour party that has no plan and no alternative. The national crisis is an Opposition who are irresponsible and who put their party interest before the interests of the British people.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
It is clear, is it not, that the deal that my right hon. Friend has negotiated so assiduously is most unlikely to secure the support of this House of Commons? In the circumstances, does she not think it would be wiser to seek an extension to article 50, rather than—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not having the right hon. Gentleman shouted down. I say very gently to a Government Whip, do not stand near the Chair and shout at your colleagues. If you are going to do that, leave the Chamber and we will manage perfectly adequately without you.
Mr Mitchell
Does my right hon. Friend not think it would be wiser to seek an extension to article 50, rather than to leave with no deal?
The Prime Minister
I do not think it is right to seek an extension of article 50. What Parliament will be faced with is a decision to exercise its responsibility to deliver on the referendum vote and to deliver Brexit. I continue to believe that this is a good deal. Yes, we are seeking further reassurances, but I continue to believe that we can leave with a good deal and that this is it.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement.
I have to ask, “Where is the leadership?”—a phrase that is often used. We thought that the Prime Minister had reached rock bottom, but she is still digging. We have four sitting days left in this place before the Christmas recess. We are then left with the narrow window, when we return in January, to find a way forward out of the Government’s Brexit timetable. It cannot be done.
After two years of negotiation, the Prime Minister has designed a deal that she knows she cannot deliver. It does not have the support of this House. It is time to call time on this Government. They are a laughing stock. Companies and their workers do not know if we are going to crash out of the European Union in three months’ time. We have just over 100 days to prepare for the risk of a no-deal outcome that most sensible folk would reject as unacceptable.
The Prime Minister is playing a game of brinkmanship. The European Council President, Donald Tusk, was clear when he said:
“I have no mandate to organise any further negotiations.”
What more does the Prime Minister need to hear to know that her deal is dead? This is embarrassing. The Prime Minister might be prepared to be embarrassed by this shambles, but the rest of us are not. Parliament needs to take control of this situation and seek to find a solution that prevents a risk to jobs and prosperity. It is the people of our countries that we are talking about.
Today the Prime Minister tells us that there are no other options. That is not the case. Standing before Parliament ruling out another referendum on EU membership is an act of desperation from the Prime Minister. Knowing that she cannot get her own deal through this place, she wants to silence debate. Having taken away Parliament’s voice—our right to a meaningful vote—she now wants us to take away the right of the people to vote: their democratic right to have their say; their democratic right to change their mind.
I plead with the Prime Minister to put all options back on the table. Stop operating in isolation; reach out and speak to the Opposition parties. We all have a responsibility to protect our citizens. It is time to move beyond the narrow party politics with which this place operates; it is time to operate in the interests of all our nations. I ask her to bring forward the meaningful vote on her deal before the Christmas recess. There is no reason to delay. Let us have that meaningful vote this week.
Lastly, will the Prime Minister do the right thing and meet me and other Opposition party leaders this week, collectively? This is the true test of this Government’s word. If we are to believe that we are a partnership of equals, then now, today, we must be heard.
The Prime Minister
First, I am happy to say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he wants to come to talk to me about this issue, I am happy to talk to him about it. But we do have a fundamental difference of opinion that was revealed in his party’s response to what I said in my statement: I believe that we should deliver leaving the EU for the British people, and he believes we should stay in the EU, so that is a fundamental difference that we have. He talks about putting jobs and prosperity first. This deal does just that. It delivers on the referendum while protecting jobs and prosperity. He says he does not want to leave with no deal. Well, the only way to ensure that we do not leave having no deal is to support a deal. And may I just remind him gently that 56% of Scots voted for pro-Brexit parties?
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The report by the Independent Commission on Referendums published earlier this year recommended that any second referendum on a subject
“should be specified in the legislation enabling the first referendum, so that the requirement for or possibility of a second referendum, and the reason for it, is clear to the electorate before the first vote takes place.”
Does the Prime Minister agree that no such provision was made, and that calling for a second referendum at this stage is merely a ruse to try to reverse the result and is not in the nation’s interests?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing that out to the House. Of course, it is absolutely the case that there was no suggestion, when the referendum was put to the people in 2016, that there might be a second referendum. People were told—they were led to believe—that their vote would be delivered by the Government of the time subsequently, and that is what I believe it is certainly in our interests, as a Government, to do. We should deliver on that vote and leave the European Union.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
The Prime Minister may be aware that the bookmakers have been offering 66-1 against her deal passing Parliament, but even money on a referendum and even money on her then winning it. Could it be that the Cabinet Ministers who are known to be preparing for a referendum are not being disloyal to her but are simply better at maths?
The Prime Minister
I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman should spend too much time in the betting shops. I am not sure that the odds on the Liberal Democrats are very good at all.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister confirm that, despite the European Council’s so-called legal endorsement of the withdrawal agreement, which it says is not open for renegotiation, this agreement has not been initialled or signed by her and is only a draft—it is no more than a political agreement under which nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, including the backstop—and therefore she can still walk away?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly confirm that this deal has been negotiated between the UK and the European Union, but it has to go through certain processes in order to be ratified. Part of that is ratification here in the United Kingdom Parliament, and part is ratification in the European Parliament. It is those processes that lead to the final agreement and the withdrawal agreement.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I am sure the Prime Minister agrees that European Council conclusions and declarations are political statements. The Council has talked about clarifications and reassurances but ruled out renegotiating, contradicting or reopening the legal text. Indeed, it even struck out language saying that the backstop did not represent a desirable outcome for the EU27. Will the Prime Minister tell us exactly what she is asking for to deliver on the key concerns about the legally binding and indefinite nature of the backstop, with no right for this country to exit it on its own terms?
The Prime Minister
What I am asking for is to ensure that we can deal with the concerns expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and other Members of the House about whether the backstop could or would be indefinite. There are two ways to deal with that. The first is to put in place arrangements to ensure that the backstop is not triggered in the first place, and the second is to ensure that if it is triggered, it is only temporary. As I said in my statement, I am seeking further political and legal assurances in relation to those issues, which can be achieved in a number of ways.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
As others have said, on Thursday it will be 100 days until Britain leaves the European Union. At the moment, we have no deal and no plan B. This is a constitutional crisis because this House is not being allowed to express its will on behalf of our communities, who around the country are telling us that they reject this deal. That is why MPs want to be able to vote against it.
It is pointless criticising Members who are coming up with other solutions, whether it is a second referendum or Canada or Norway-style deals. We as a Parliament are trying to find a solution to the political cul-de-sac and mess that we find this country in. It was clear back in the summer that the Prime Minister’s deal was not going to succeed. She is now not only not listening; she is not allowing debate. This is totally unacceptable. Will she agree to bring the vote before the House before Christmas, so that she can reflect on the outcome over the Christmas break and then lead us?
The Prime Minister
I know that my right hon. Friend and I have different opinions on the issue of a second referendum. I have indicated when the vote will be brought back to the House. It will be necessary for the usual channels to agree what the business motion would be and how many days of debate would be available. We are not trying to stop debate. I am trying to—[Interruption.] I am recognising and reflecting to the European Union the concerns expressed in this House and seeking ways in which we can ensure that Members have sufficient confidence that those concerns have been addressed.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister went to the European Council seeking legal assurances and returned with none, and the next Council meeting scheduled is in the third week of March. Now that Cabinet Ministers are openly speculating about what should happen when her deal is defeated, can she tell the House what purpose it serves to continue to pretend that we might leave the European Union without an agreement, when she knows better than anyone else how damaging and disastrous that would be, and when she told the House just now that it would risk the “jobs, services and security” of the people?
The Prime Minister
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have responded on this point previously. We do have—this House has—a responsibility, and it will have a responsibility, to come to a decision on this matter and to determine whether to leave the European Union with a deal or to leave without a deal. There will also be those in this House who will try to ensure that, actually, we stay in the European Union. I think that would be wrong. I think we should be leaving the European Union, because that is what people voted for in the biggest exercise of democracy in our history. I believe that we should be leaving with a good deal, and this is it.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
The final steps of contingency planning for departure on WTO terms are essential in case EU intransigence continues. Will the Prime Minister confirm that all of those necessary actions are now being taken to see us through any short-term disruption, including action to prepare for extra checks at the border, diversion of flow to friendlier ports, liberalisation of tariff schedules and cutting taxes for businesses?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is trying to tempt me into some budgetary decisions there, which, as he will know, would not be appropriate at the Dispatch Box. But I would say to him that we are making the plans—the contingency arrangements—for no deal. As I said in my statement, the Cabinet will be meeting tomorrow to discuss what further steps need to be taken. We have already stepped up those preparations—indeed, my right hon. Friend was responsible for them himself when he was the Brexit Secretary of State—but further stepping up of the no-deal preparations has gone on to address exactly the sorts of issues he is looking at, such as the flow of traffic into different ports here in the UK to ease the disruption. Disruption will take place under no deal in the short term. We want to take every step we can to mitigate that.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister ruled out a customs union, ruled out Norway, ruled out Canada, ruled out parliamentary votes on her objectives, ruled out parliamentary votes on the options and is now ruling out extending article 50, yet everyone knows she does not have support for her plan and she has no assurances from the EU that she asked for. If she carries on like this, she is the one who will take us over a no-deal cliff edge.
This Christmas, businesses and Departments across the country are now going to be spending billions of pounds preparing for no deal. Does she not have a duty and a responsibility to them to rule out no deal, to say she will extend article 50 and to have a proper discussion in Parliament to work out the way forward?
The Prime Minister
First, the right hon. Lady says that we ruled out certain things. Actually, in the vote that took place in 2016, the majority of the British people voted to leave the European Union, and one of the key issues in that was bringing an end to free movement, which some of the suggestions that she has as alternatives would not allow to happen. So, actually, we are trying to reflect the views that took place during that vote, and the decision as to whether or not we go forward with the deal will be one that this Parliament will take.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
My right hon. Friend continues to negotiate changes to the backstop. Does she not agree that if those efforts were, unfortunately, to fail and if we are to avoid leaving without a deal, which we must at all costs avoid, it must now be critical that we build consensus in this House and forge a compromise that delivers Brexit while protecting British jobs and interests?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my right hon. Friend that the aim of everything we are doing, and I believe the aim of what this House will do, should be to ensure that we deliver on that vote and do it in a way that protects jobs and prosperity for people up and down this country. That is exactly what we are working for, and I hope that every Member of this House will consider that when it comes to looking at whether or not we should support this deal. I believe we should because it does exactly what my right hon. Friend has suggested.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Let me tell the Prime Minister what is irresponsible: delaying a vote on her agreement not because she is going to get any changes to it, but because she wants to run down the clock and try to intimidate MPs into supporting it to avoid no deal. Is it not the reality that this is not acting in the national interest, but in her personal interest, and that neither her party nor the country will forgive her for it?
The Prime Minister
I believe it would not have been right if I had not listened to the concerns expressed in the House. I listened to those concerns and I am working—discussions are continuing—with the European Union in relation to how we address them. It will then be for Parliament to decide but, at that point, Parliament and Members of the House will have a responsibility. The decision they come to will be about whether or not to deliver on the vote of the referendum in a way that protects jobs and our security.
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Given that the Prime Minister has listened and is still trying to improve the deal, would the deal be more palatable if the timetable for starting on and agreeing the terms of future trade were as firm and as legally binding as the timetable for paying over all the billions?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. From the Council conclusions, there has been further progress in relation to the EU’s commitment to starting the next stage of negotiations, but it is important for us to continue to discuss the issue he raises about getting that confirmation and certainty—he refers to legal certainty—as to when those negotiations can start, and when it is the determination of both parties to ensure that those negotiations end. We want that trade deal in place by the end of December 2020.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Prime Minister has said for two years that no deal is better than a bad deal, but we now know why—her deal is a disaster and will never pass the House. As she desperately tries to let the clock tick down, will she publish her no-deal planning?
The Prime Minister
I have been and remain clear that no deal is better than a bad deal, but I believe this is a good deal.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister publish the tariff schedule for the UK for a World Trade Organisation exit? Will that include zero tariffs on all components coming in for manufacture to provide yet another great boost to Britain as a big manufacturing centre?
The Prime Minister
These issues would have to be addressed in relation to a no-deal scenario. The Government continue to discuss the plans we need to put in place to deal with the possibility of no deal in order to mitigate the disruption that would occur in that situation. Obviously, we will be looking closely at the tariff schedules.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
How much will it cost the NHS, our other public services and thousands of businesses up and down the country as they are forced to activate their no-deal contingency plans because of the Prime Minister’s reckless time wasting?
The Prime Minister
Responsible government is about ensuring that contingency arrangements are put in place. That is the responsible thing that any Government in this situation would do—ensure that contingency arrangements are in place until we have the outcome and know with certainty whether we are leaving with a deal or no deal. We need to make those contingency arrangements. That is the right thing to do.
Ms Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
After tomorrow’s Cabinet meeting when no-deal preparations will be high on the agenda, will the Prime Minister please arrange for a Minister to come to the House to give a statement—this week and every week until we leave the EU—so that we know what is happening and so that the country, businesses and individuals can be reassured? It is vital that the preparations happen, and this House needs to know what is happening.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend raises the important point of making planning information available to the House. There are a number of ways in which that is expressed to the House. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union appears before the Select Committee and responds on those issues, and these matters have been addressed in debates in the House, but I understand the point she makes about wanting to ensure that Members are aware of the arrangements that have been put in place.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
Does the Prime Minister accept that this House needs more time not to debate but to vote on the various options before it? Might she not therefore agree that we vote as soon as possible on the amendments that the Speaker will choose of those tabled? If she is unwilling to do that, might the Opposition parties think how they can use the time they have to debate on the Floor of the House to bring forward that vote? If Members agree with that line of action, might they sign the motion on the Order Paper in my name?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Obviously, the intention is to have a proper number of days for debate when the vote is brought back in January. At that stage, how the matter is put before the House will depend on the further discussions that have taken place with the European Union. As we have always said, any motion on this issue is of course amendable by Members of the House.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
We are told that the United Kingdom does not want the backstop. We are told that the European Union does not want to enter the backstop. What on earth is stopping the European Union giving us a legal guarantee that such a backstop would last only for a very short time?
The Prime Minister
It is exactly that further political and legal assurance that we are looking at. There have been very clear statements from the European Union. Those have been reiterated not only in the Council conclusions but after the Council conclusions as well. The best way to stop the backstop coming into place is of course to have a firm date for introducing the future relationship. That is currently the intention and that is currently 31 December 2020. We will continue to discuss what further assurances we can get on this point.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
When precisely will the Prime Minister be securing this “Miracle on 34th Street” guarantee from the European Union on the backstop that she will come back with before 7 January? If she does come back with it, will the House be debating it on a fresh Government motion? On her commitment to come back on 7 January to start the debate, is that a promise?
The Prime Minister
First of all, the business motion and the way in which the debate is to be dealt with by the House will of course be discussed through the usual channels. I said we would be starting the debate in the first week, with a vote in the following week. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the timetable. Discussions are continuing with the European Union and I expect them to continue into the new year.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Here is what would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics: to run down the clock and end up forcing through a deal that 48% did not want because they did not want to leave the European Union, and that the majority of those who voted for Brexit do not want. The mathematics simply do not stack up. The majority, in this House and in the wider country, do not want this deal. Can I ask the Prime Minister to get on with it, so that we can vote on it and then look at practical alternatives?
The Prime Minister
As I indicated in my statement, we will bring the vote back in the second week in January. It is our intention that the debate will start in the previous week, the first week of January. As I said earlier, I have listened to the House. Had I not listened to the House and started the work to try to get further assurances, I suspect hon. Members would have raised that issue. It is right that I and the Government are doing exactly what we said we would, which is work with the EU for those further political and legal assurances.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
We now know what the plan is. Having failed to win support for the deal in Parliament and having failed to get any meaningful change to it at the EU Council last week, the Prime Minister now simply wants to run down the clock and intimidate Parliament into choosing between a bad deal and the disaster of no deal. I put it to the Prime Minister that it is wrong to threaten and intimidate Parliament in this way. More importantly, it is reckless to take options off the table, as she has tried to do today, that could prevent the disaster of no deal for the country.
The Prime Minister
Whatever the point at which this House faced the meaningful vote, it will be a decision for Members of this House as to whether to accept the deal or—[Interruption.] There are some who would prefer to see action taken so that we do not leave the European Union—I think that would be wrong. What I believe is right is that we deliver on the referendum. The question will be for Members of this House as to whether they accept that responsibility, and to come to a decision. At the moment, there have been lots of ideas around this House about what should happen, but no alternatives that actually deliver on the referendum in a way that protects jobs. That is what the deal does, but it will be a decision for individual Members of this House to bear the responsibility that they have.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister will be aware that those of us who have large manufacturing companies in our constituencies—in my case, Johnson Matthey in Royston—that do integrated manufacture on a European basis with short supply lines are getting on to people like me and saying, “Look, it’s very urgent that we have a deal.” When she is negotiating and discussing in Europe with people like Mr Juncker, does she have the feeling that there is that urgent need to get a deal and that they are prepared to listen to what she says and really put in a shift? I must say that when I saw him looking so relaxed and really being rather patronising to our Prime Minister, I felt that was not really him putting in the sort of shift that she has.
The Prime Minister
The very clear message that comes back from the European Union—from the Commission and EU leaders—is that they do want a deal. We have obviously negotiated this deal. There are those further assurances that I am working to achieve, and it has been made clear by President Juncker and others that those further discussions can indeed take place.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Prime Minister knows that no better deal will be found in Europe and that no majority will be found in Westminster. She also knows that no deal is disastrous. She delayed a vote because she knew her deal would fail to get the support that it needed. She can employ the same logic again. Will she confirm that she holds the power to seek an extension for article 50?
The Prime Minister
First of all, the Government hold the power to seek an extension for article 50; and any extension of article 50 would have to be agreed with the European Union, but I have been clear that what I believe is the right course of action, having triggered article 50 and having undertaken the negotiations, is that we ensure that we leave the European Union on the timetable that we have already set out.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister in her statement talked about empowering this House. The trouble is that she is asking the House to accept a deferral for several weeks of the meaningful vote on the draft withdrawal agreement, on the basis that further assurances can be agreed with the European Union, but there is nothing in what she has said today or in what has been reported from the EU Council to suggest that those further assurances are likely to be given. I say this as somebody who was going to vote for her draft agreement on the basis that she set out—that businesses need certainty and the country needs reassurance. I honestly do not think that businesses, employers and our constituents will understand why this House is going on holiday for two weeks when we should be having the meaningful vote this week.
The Prime Minister
What I believe is right is that, having heard the concerns that have been expressed by Members of this House, the Government are taking those concerns to the European Union. Yes, we have further statements from the EU with legal status in the Council conclusions than we have had before, but we are seeking yet more and further assurances from the European Union. I think that is the right thing to do, then that can be debated properly by this House and the vote taken.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Last Thursday, the Attorney General told the House that he was reviewing the question of whether article 50 could be revoked by a simple vote of this House or by legislation. This Thursday, the Scottish case is being referred back from the European Court of Justice to the court in Edinburgh to look at this issue. Can the Prime Minister confirm for us that the Government’s position on how article 50 could be revoked—whether through legislation or whether simply a vote of this House is required—will be set out to the court in Edinburgh on Thursday?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly look into that issue and get back to the hon. and learned Lady about the specifics in terms of the Government’s stance on the case that is going to the court in Edinburgh. I know that she has taken a considerable interest in revoking article 50. I simply remind all Members that the Government have said that we will not revoke article 50, because it means staying in the European Union.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I am one of the Members who would have and will support the Prime Minister’s deal, but I have to say that what is coming back to me from business, industry and the City is that we are haemorrhaging support and investment on a daily basis and it is getting worse. That is why I join hon. Members in saying, please think again about holding the vote and about considering a series of stand-alone resolutions, which mean that we can take a view and move on.
The Prime Minister
I understand the concern that my hon. Friend expresses about business. Business wants certainty. Business wants the deal. Business welcomed the deal when we negotiated it and I think that it still takes that approach. My hon. Friend referred to what have been called indicative votes—a number of motions that could be brought before the House. I have no plans for indicative votes. I say to him and other Members that it is necessary for the House to reflect on what Members want in terms of their responsibility to come to a decision on this matter. At the moment, there are a number of views in the House: some want to stay in the EU, some want to go for a second referendum, some would support no deal and some would support looking at other arrangements. As I said, any of those arrangements would require a withdrawal agreement, because they would require us to make clear the basis on which we are withdrawing from the European Union.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Last week, the Prime Minister admonished Jean-Claude Juncker for his use of the word “nebulous”. Many Members would take issue with her use of the word “meaningful” because there is nothing meaningful about a vote that forces Members to choose between her deal and no deal. When will the Prime Minister stop digging, start listening and build a consensus with Members across the House to get us out of this mess?
The Prime Minister
It was always going to be the case, whenever the vote came before the House, that Members would have a decision on whether to support the deal that had been negotiated with the European Union, with the consequences that failure to support it would bring. That is the same whenever that vote is taken.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House on 3 December that the £3 billion to £4 billion set aside in the Budget for contingency no-deal planning was about to be allocated in the next few days to relevant Departments? Has that allocation has been made and is the money now available for essential contingency planning?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do recall saying that. Of course, the 2018-19 financial year allocations are in place and money is being spent. I think my right hon. Friend was referring to—and I was referring to—the 2019-20 allocations. Negotiations on those are well advanced, several Departments have settled and we expect to be in a position to confirm all those shortly.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Last Friday, a constituent said to me that although she had voted to leave in the referendum in 2016, she now wanted to register the fact that she had changed her mind, as she put it, for the sake of her grandchildren. If it emerges that a significant number of previous leave voters have reached the same conclusion, what would be more democratic: allowing them the opportunity to change their mind, or pressing on regardless?
The Prime Minister
I also hear from people who are in the opposite position: they voted to remain and now say that they would vote to leave the European Union. If there were a second referendum, which had the same result, would those hon. Members who wish people to be given the chance to think again continue to say that there should be a referendum? If there were a different result, I think many people would ask, “How many referendums shall we have?” We had the referendum and I believe that it is our duty to deliver on it.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
The problem is that there is a consensus in the country, and that consensus is that this is one unholy mess and a solution must be found. The Prime Minister has still not told us what her plan B is. Does she not understand that, if we left the European Union without a people’s vote, knowing what Brexit looked like, and then it turned out that the people of this country, knowing what Brexit looked like, did not want us to leave the European Union, it would be the biggest betrayal of democracy in this country, and the people of this country, especially the young people, would never forget or forgive us—especially our party?
The Prime Minister
I know that my right hon. Friend has taken a particular view in relation to this issue, but I continue to believe that what we should be doing is delivering on the vote. As I said when I gave the figures in my statement, it was the overwhelming view of this Parliament that the people should have a vote in the referendum, and it was the overwhelming view of this Parliament that article 50 should be triggered. Article 50 leads to our leaving the European Union, and it is now our duty to deliver that.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
How does the Prime Minister have the gall to accuse those of us who want more democracy of breaking faith with the public, when she herself has turned faith breaking into a new art form? She promised no general election last year, and then granted one. She promised a meaningful vote last week, and then cancelled it. But one cannot break faith with the British public by asking for their views. Why can the Prime Minister not understand that a people’s vote would be the first opportunity for people to vote on the facts, not on the fantasy and the fabrication?
The Prime Minister
Many people up and down the country—17.4 million people, I think—would say that, if the vote that took place in 2016 were not honoured by this Parliament, that would be breaking faith.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend has said, the outcome is that we leave without an agreement to leave, a transition and future arrangements, or we somehow return to the attempt by some to reverse the result of the referendum—or we have the deal with the agreements that are being negotiated now. In an article published in The Times on Thursday, Freddie Sayers made it clear that seven people out of eight in the country—and, I suspect, here as well—would rather have the deal with the agreements than drop out without a deal or have another referendum. So I can say to the Prime Minister that I think most people support her, and we should too.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. What he has said reflects comments from around the country: people say or write to me that they want us to get on with it, to deliver and then to be able—as a Government and as a Parliament—to get on with addressing the domestic issues that matter to them day to day.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
Let us be clear: it is the long list of broken promises of leave campaigners whom the Prime Minister appointed to her Government that has done irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics. She has made three statements in the House, and on each occasion the House has made clear that it will not vote for her plan, but she continues to refuse to listen. May I ask her a specific question? She has said that no deal is not something that she would countenance. Let us suppose that we reach the March 2019 European Council and there is no consensus in the House on a route forward. Will she now commit herself to request an extension of article 50 at that European Council to stop no deal from happening?
The Prime Minister
I have indicated my approach in relation to the extension of article 50.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
Notwithstanding what Emmanuel Macron said on Friday, recent comments from the European Commission have been rather more hostile, and anything but nebulous. Martin Selmayr is reported to have told officials that losing Northern Ireland was the price of Brexit. Briefing EU ambassadors on the deal, Sabine Weyand said that the UK
“must align their rules but the EU will retain all the controls.”
At the weekend, a further EU official was reported in The Times to have said:
“To use a Christmas theme, we want all parties and factions in the British parliament to feel the bleak midwinter.”
Does that sound to my right hon. Friend like people negotiating in good faith?
The Prime Minister
I have always been clear throughout this that these have been tough negotiations, but we have held our side and achieved a deal that delivers on the vote of the British people, and delivers it in a way that protects jobs and security and, I believe, protects our prosperity for the future.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it not the truth that, while the Prime Minister talks about democracy, she prevented the Cabinet from having a vote, she is preventing Parliament from having a vote and she does not want the public to have a vote on this deal? If she wants to talk about democracy, she should think very carefully about that. Will she not admit that she is acting in a completely reckless fashion with jobs, with business, with investment and with our constituents’ futures, because on 2 January, when the vast majority of people in this country will go back to work, this Parliament will not be sitting, the Government will still be stalling for time and trying to come up with a magic solution and people will simply be asking, “What is going on?”
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman asked me a question in relation to what I was doing and I have to say that my answer to that question is no.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We have had our people’s vote in Lincolnshire—and they are people, by the way. May I express an unfashionably supportive view of the Prime Minister today? I think that this matter is resolvable, and many of us who have been sceptical about the deal so far could be persuaded to vote for it if there were a legally binding protocol saying that, as is normal with international treaties, if a temporary arrangement ceases to be temporary, then either side can unilaterally withdraw, and in any event under international law we would have the right to abrogate those parts of the treaty if they prove not to be temporary. So I say to the Prime Minister—keep calm and carry on.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and I think that the amendment he has tabled to the motion reflects the view he has just expressed. There are many ways in which we can achieve what everybody, I think, who is concerned about the backstop wants, which is to make sure that if it is used it is only temporary. I want to try to make sure it is not used at all.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Prime Minister aware that many people in our country feel that they were conned over the last referendum by a combination of fraudsters, cheats, foreign money and dissembling about the real truth of the challenges our country faces? Does she also know that many of us feel it is tragic to see her so isolated—isolated from her party, from this Parliament and from the people in the country? Will she change her mind, as I have done, and go for a people’s vote and a people’s choice on the facts, not on the theory?
The Prime Minister
No, I have already made my views clear. I mentioned them in my statement in relation to the concept of a second referendum. I think that we should be delivering on the referendum that took place in 2016.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has said that she is going to be stepping up work to mitigate any disruption in the event of a no deal and the Cabinet will be discussing that tomorrow. Given that there are just over 100 days to go and we have the Christmas and new year break, can she inform this House and the watching country how many COBRA meetings there will be, how many she will chair, and whether there will be meetings throughout the Christmas and new year break of Cabinet Ministers and COBRA to plan for this?
The Prime Minister
There have already been fortnightly meetings taking place, and that will move to a more regular rhythm in January as we continue to step up the preparations for no deal.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
May I welcome the Prime Minister ruling out a second referendum when we have not actually implemented the first, and may I also congratulate her—she did not get her hair ruffled by President Juncker in the way he seems to do to everybody? However, has she had a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He implied the people who voted leave—17.4 million people—were extremists. Has she had a word with him to make sure that he is not going to take that attitude to decent people across the country?
The Prime Minister
Everybody in this Government recognises that this Parliament gave people the decision on whether or not to leave. People went out and 17.4 million people chose that we should leave the European Union. They did so for a variety of reasons—ending free movement was a reason for many of them, but for many of them a reason was also the concept of wanting a United Kingdom able to stand independent in the world, to make those trade deals around the rest of the world, but to be free of the bureaucracy of Brussels; that was another reason people voted to leave. They did that with their hearts and with their heads and with the best of intentions, and it is our job to deliver on the vote they gave.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
By your leave, Mr Speaker, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on winning the confidence of the Conservatives in this House last week and assure her that she therefore commands my confidence, too? On the issue of the second referendum—better known as the losers’ vote—I support the Prime Minister’s opposition to this not only because it is undemocratic and would be divisive but because it would be very hard to deny a second referendum in Scotland if we had a second referendum on membership of the European Union.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have a record on a number of referendums over the years. We have accepted the decisions that people have taken and we have not gone back to them with a second referendum. He is absolutely right, and I also thank him for his remarks at the beginning of his question.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
We have been told that there is going to be a 34-day delay, from when we were supposed to have the meaningful vote last Tuesday until the new date of 14 January. There are clearly not going to be any substantive changes to the withdrawal agreement, and we all know what the outcome of the vote will be, so it is irresponsible of the Prime Minister to prolong this uncertainty while not ruling out a no-deal Brexit. Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), I want to ask her again: what is the cost to our country of pressing the button on the no-deal contingency plans, which we know that many businesses and public services across the country, including our NHS, will now have to trigger before Christmas?
The Prime Minister
I will give the hon. Lady the same answer that I gave to the right hon. Member for Exeter, which is that these are plans that it is sensible for the Government to make as contingency arrangements in the circumstances that we have. If she and other Members wish to ensure that we do not leave the European Union without a deal, the only way to do that is to support a deal.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Twenty-seven Prime Ministers across Europe have agreed unanimously to offer the UK the deepest trade agreement they have ever offered. Five of those Prime Ministers are from sister parties of the British Labour party and seven are from sister parties of the British Liberal Democrat party. Does our Prime Minister agree that the best way for our Opposition parties to avoid a hard Brexit is to look again at the deal that is being offered by Prime Ministers across Europe?
The Prime Minister
I echo my hon. Friend’s comments; she is absolutely right. I understand that those sister parties have been talking to the parties on our Opposition Benches and encouraging them to see that this deal delivers a far wider and more ambitious trading arrangement than has ever been offered to any other third country.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
For weeks now, the Prime Minister has been clear about what her deal is. For weeks now, the European Union has been clear about what deal it will offer. For weeks now, this House has been clear about what it will reject. However, it is not true that nothing has changed, because it is clear that what little support the Prime Minister had left on her own Benches is now ebbing away by the hour—[Interruption.] Well, cheer if you want, gentlemen, but it is not happening, is it? We know that the quicker we take the deal, the longer we will have to prepare for whatever the outcome of that vote is. The British public will not forgive any of us for going away on holiday without having made any progress on this. For goodness sake, Prime Minister, stop wasting our time! Get on and table that vote, and let us prepare for what comes next.
The Prime Minister
It is not correct to say that no progress has been made, but I want to see further progress being made and that is what I am going to be working on.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
The draft withdrawal agreement is 585 pages long, and while I appreciate, although do not necessary agree with, the case for not producing a full plan for a managed no-deal Brexit, if the withdrawal agreement fails and is rejected in this House, how quickly will the full no-deal preparation be published?
The Prime Minister
As I am sure my hon. Friend will recall, the formal position is that if the deal is rejected, the Government have a limited number of sitting days in which to bring forward proposals for the next stage and for dealing with that situation, and that is the timetable that we would obviously meet.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
It is interesting that the one passage leaked to the press yesterday of the Prime Minister’s lengthy statement today was her antagonism towards the idea of a people’s vote. It is entirely consistent with her approach to this process that she took this House to the Supreme Court to stop us having a say at the beginning and then withdrew the vote last week at the end. If she is going to pause, stop and prevaricate in the next few weeks, I beg her to use that time to start listening to and engaging with people in this House and the anxieties that are felt out there by the public. For the very first time, will she engage and listen?
The Prime Minister
I have made the point about listening to the House, which is why further discussions are taking place, and as I said in my statement, I am of course happy to speak with people in this House. I have been speaking with quite a few of my colleagues over the past couple of weeks, and I am happy to continue to speak with colleagues about how we can ensure that we deliver on the vote and that we deliver a good Brexit.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Should the Prime Minister’s recent experiences at the EU Council not serve as a powerful corrective to any illusion that we could have remained a member of it?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I suspect that what he saw actually fed into the concerns that many of the 17.4 million people had when they voted to leave.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
This afternoon, on a cross-party basis, 60 Members of Parliament wrote to the Prime Minister asking her to rule out no deal. She knows the costs. What possible reason can she have for not doing that now?
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The Prime Minister is right to seek further assurances on the backstop, which, after all, is what many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House asked her to do. Is it not the case that most hon. Members who now support a second referendum, most of whom voted to trigger article 50, are doing so working on the heroic assumption that remain is likely to win? Have they stopped for one second to consider the possibility that leave might win or, worst of all, that we would have another very narrow result that would cause uncertainty in this country in the months and years ahead?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about the uncertainty that would come to this country. As I have said before, a second referendum would be divisive; it would not necessarily be decisive. However, many people who assume that it would result in a remain decision actually underestimate the character of the British people, and the view of many people would be, “We gave a very clear message; we wanted to leave; and we’ll vote in even greater numbers to do so.”
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Prime Minister not realise that the reason why the EU is clinging limpet-like to this agreement is that it knows that there are concessions within that will enable it, when it comes to the future trade arrangements, to extract even more concessions from the UK Government? Would it not be far better to walk away now with £39 billion in her pocket and with her hands free and able to do the kind of work that any Government should want to do to make this country prosperous?
The Prime Minister
Of course, it has been made clear to the Government that it is not the case that we would not have any financial liabilities in a no-deal circumstance. There would be some financial liabilities for this Government. Of course, the £39 billion is the negotiated settlement in relation to the withdrawal agreement, but there would be financial liabilities even in a no-deal situation.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
It is not just the backstop that worries colleagues, myself included; for me, it is the lack of legal certainty over what our future trade deals might look like. The political declaration is not legally binding, so any EU country leader, including our own should we have a different leader, could rip it up and we could spiral to a no-deal Brexit at any time. The Prime Minister has said it is not about our view, and I agree with her. That is why she has appealed to the country directly with her deal, and it is why I must represent my constituents. If she really believes in the views of constituents being the most important thing, surely the right thing to do—dare I say the democratic thing to do?—is to be honest and grown up by displaying proper engagement with the people, which means checking with them that they are content with her deal.
The Prime Minister
The arguments my hon. Friend puts about listening to people could equally be put about listening to people in relation to the first referendum held in 2016. She raises an important point about the nature of the political declaration, and that concern is another issue that I have been raising with the European Union, because I want to ensure that right hon. and hon. Members are able to have full confidence in that future trade agreement.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The Prime Minister made a deal with the EU on Ireland, and Ireland is right to keep her in a cage of her own making to make sure that the UK cannot backslide on its commitments. Last week, the EU27 will have noticed the sleekit way her Government changed the laws and moved the goalposts when dealing with Scotland in the Supreme Court. The reality is that, where once Britannia said it ruled the waves, now the EU’s big fear, as we have seen with Scotland, is that, when given the chance, Britannia will waive the rules and will be away on holiday before voting on any deal.
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Bill that the Scottish Parliament brought forward that challenged the changes made in relation to the withdrawal Act. On the relationship between the withdrawal Act and the decisions of the Scottish Parliament in relation to Scotland, SNP Members and, indeed, the Scottish Government were aware of the position when they brought that Bill before the Scottish Parliament.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Despite assurances from the Prime Minister that the backstop would be temporary, I remain very concerned that if this House approves the deeply flawed withdrawal agreement, we risk being trapped in the backstop indefinitely. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that income tax was introduced in 1799 as a temporary measure to pay for the Napoleonic wars?
The Prime Minister
I am interested in the historical link my hon. Friend draws on this matter. I recognise that he and others have concerns about the backstop, and I continue to work to provide the assurances that I hope would enable him to accept a deal and make sure that we leave the European Union with a deal.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Several members of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet said this weekend that, if her deal is voted down, it should be for Parliament to decide what happens next. Does she agree?
The Prime Minister
There is a process set out in the legislation. If the deal is voted down, it is for the Government, within a certain period of time, to bring forward their proposals to Parliament. A motion will be tabled before Parliament and, following the amendment agreed by Parliament a couple of weeks ago, the motion will be amendable.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
Judging by the tone and content of today’s statement, it would appear that the Prime Minister is still implacably opposed to what I think is the only democratic solution to this impasse. For the sake of clarity, will she confirm that she is so opposed that she would prefer no deal?
The Prime Minister
What I want to see happening, and what I prefer, is for us to leave the European Union on the basis of a good deal, and I believe this is a good deal.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition know there is no point in kicking this can down the road—nothing is going to happen over Christmas and the new year. May I ask the Prime Minister to bring forward her meaningful vote this week and the Leader of the Opposition to bring forward his motion of no confidence this week, and then this week we can move on to where we know we are going, which is a people’s vote?
The Prime Minister
No, there are further discussions with the EU and those will continue into the new year.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I want to commend the Prime Minister’s dogged determination, and so many people on the streets of my constituency this weekend commended her for her attitude. Does she agree that given that this is the only deal on the table, everything must be done to make it acceptable, which means everybody pulling together for the sake of the nation and, in particular, for the sake of our younger generations, who do not seem to be mentioned enough? That was reiterated to me at University Centre Somerset just this weekend, because we do have to leave them with an economy that is fully functioning and viable.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to ensure that we are protecting the economy for the future, and that is what this deal does. Those young people at University Centre Somerset would want to see not just a Government but an Opposition putting their interests and the national interest first, rather than the Opposition putting their party interests first.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The past few weeks have shown that this deal is going nowhere, and today’s statement does not change that. Does the Prime Minister now regret not working cross-party to build a consensus in this House? Why will she not accept that there is a way out of this hopeless situation by extending article 50 and working together, without the political posturing, for a deal that works for everyone?
The Prime Minister
We have negotiated a deal that works for everyone. I say to the hon. Lady simply this: in June 2016, a vote was held and people voted to leave the European Union. On 29 March 2019, the date set for us to leave the EU, it will be nearly three years since that vote. I think people want us to get on with leaving the EU, and that is what we will do.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister realise that when Jean-Claude Juncker called her “nebulous” he fundamentally underestimated the attitude of the British people, who completely disagree with that sentiment? That is what I found in my constituency this weekend, where people praised the Prime Minister’s determination to get a deal that works for my constituency. Can she display that similar determination in ruling out a second referendum, which would be so insulting to my constituents and suggest that they do not know what they voted for the first time round?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Many people who voted to leave in the referendum in 2016 would say exactly that: they knew what they were voting for; they voted for what they believed was right for this country; and they want a Government who deliver that.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
I have asked the Prime Minister before whether her deal is better than the one we have now and she cannot give a straight answer, because I think she knows the answer is no. What undermines the integrity of our democracy, Prime Minister, is to ask—eventually—Members of this House to knowingly vote for something that will make their constituents poorer; it is not those in this House who want the people to have the final say on whether they actually wanted that to happen in the first place. Prime Minister, is your deal better than the one we have now? If it is, can we have the vote on the meaningful vote this week?
The Prime Minister
I have set out when the meaningful vote will take place. The hon. Gentleman again referenced people being poorer under this deal than they are today. They are not going to be poorer under this deal than they are today. The economic analysis is very clear about this, and it is clear that the best deal—the best approach that delivers on the referendum and protects jobs and the economy—is the deal.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
A number of Opposition Members and, indeed, some Government Members have been talking about people who have changed their minds and how important it is that we respect people’s opportunity to change their minds. Does the Prime Minister agree that although there is no evidence to show that a meaningful number of people have changed their mind in respect of the referendum result, it is clear that a number of Opposition Members have changed their minds, because previously they said they would respect the outcome of the referendum and they clearly now no longer wish to do so? If they want to stop Brexit, they should be honest with this House and their constituents and just say so.
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is the case that both the Conservative party and the Labour party campaigned in last year’s election on the basis that we would respect the referendum and deliver on its result. I believe that is important, and the Opposition should take that position as well, to reflect their manifesto and the promise that they made to the British people.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Given that the Conservatives have had the opportunity to decide on the Prime Minister’s own position twice in the past two years, in what way is it undemocratic to give the people a second vote on Brexit?
The Prime Minister
It is important that we recognise when we have a referendum in this country that we do not say to people, “Well, if it comes out with the result that most people in Parliament want, we will accept it, and if not, we won’t.” We accept the results of referendums in this country. Given that the majority of Members of this House stood last year on manifestos that said they would respect the result of the referendum, we should do that.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
The certainty of World Trade Organisation terms from 29 March, without even including the opportunity for tariff-free trade under article 24 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the immediate opportunity to negotiate and conclude free trade agreements with the EU and the rest of the world, hardly sounds like an outcome to be avoided at all costs, and certainly not like a disaster. The extent of any disruption from a move to WTO terms depends on the policies of our European Union partners. If it becomes clear on Wednesday that their preparations appear to make transition more difficult, not easier, will the Prime Minister make sure that of the £39 billion that we would otherwise pay to the EU, the first charge is for British businesses affected by their policies? Will she show the first flash of steel by making it clear that she will at least consider that the £1.2 billion of sunk costs in the Galileo project might also come into consideration?
The Prime Minister
The work on the financial settlement that led to the £34 billion to £39 billion—significantly less than the £100 billion that was being talked about at European Union level at one stage—did of course take into account all the aspects of the contributions that the United Kingdom has made into the European Union over the number of years of our membership. As a result of the tough negotiations that the UK undertook, we have seen a significantly smaller sum of money than the one that the European Union initially thought of.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
On Friday, I visited the Newcastle West End food bank to drop off a Christmas donation. The food bank is now distributing around 11 tonnes of food a month to people in crisis, half of whom are children. The Prime Minister’s own Government’s analysis shows that we will be worse off under every Brexit scenario, but particularly if we leave without an agreement. Her no-deal threat makes no sense. She will not give the details or the economic analysis of the costs, so will she just take that threat off the table and give the reassurance that this Government—her Government—will not let the poorest in society pay for this Brexit impasse?
The Prime Minister
When looking at the negotiations for this deal, we wanted to ensure that we could protect jobs and that we would protect our prosperity for the future, and that is exactly what we have done. I repeat what I have said to other hon. Members: it is not possible simply to wish away no deal without having an alternative to no deal. That means either having a deal or not having Brexit at all. I believe that delivering on Brexit is what we should be doing and what this House should be agreeing.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I urge the Government to get off their knees in these negotiations. Will the Prime Minister remind the EU, this House, and perhaps even the Cabinet that we are the United Kingdom, and that we are perfectly capable of standing alone? We are not some kind of small, third-world backwater that is dependent on the benevolence of the European Union. The way that the EU has treated the Prime Minister in these negotiations is embarrassing for her and humiliating for the United Kingdom. If she were to go along to the EU now and tell it, in the face of its intransigence, to get stuffed, the huge proportion of the British people would be absolutely right behind her. In this great battle between Parliament and the people, it is critical that the Prime Minister is on the side of the people.
The Prime Minister
I say to my hon. Friend that being on the side of the people is about ensuring that this Government deliver on Brexit, and that is what we will do.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
At the weekend, it was reported that the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, had been taken on board as a backseat driver of this process. I have to say that, given that he was the original architect of this mess, I was slightly concerned about that. What exactly is the former Prime Minister’s role in this, when exactly was the last time she spoke to him and what advice is he giving her?
The Prime Minister
The former Prime Minister is not giving advice. The last time I spoke to him was when we agreed the withdrawal agreement. It was when I spoke to two former Prime Ministers, as a matter of courtesy, to inform them what had been negotiated with the European Union.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I welcome the guarantees that the Prime Minister has given today about having no second referendum of any kind. I also welcome her standing up to Mr Juncker. May I just say in plain words that she should go to the European Union and say, “You can stick the £39 billion of taxpayers’ money where the sun don’t shine unless we get legal movement on the backstop.”? She would not be called nebulous then; she would be called the iron lady.
The Prime Minister
As I have said to other Members of this House, it is important for us to remember that, whatever the circumstances of our leaving the European Union, there would be some financial obligations for us. As a country that does meet its legal obligations, it is important for us to continue to do so.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The trouble is that all the time in the world will not make the slightest difference to the arithmetic in this House. The truth is that by delaying holding the meaningful vote by another 28 days from today, the Prime Minister is playing into the hands of the European Union, she is playing into the hands of those who want to undermine our security, she is playing into the hands of those who want to be our economic rivals and she is achieving absolutely nothing for this country. She could invite every single Member of the House round to her gaff for Christmas day, Boxing day and new year’s eve and she would still lose the vote, so why does she not get on with it this week?
The Prime Minister
It is because I am seeking those further assurances from the European Union. I have listened to the House and that is what I am doing.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I very much hope that the Prime Minister can agree with the EU a legally binding annex to the withdrawal agreement on any intended use of the backstop as that could unite many Members of this House. Given that they too, like us, were elected on a manifesto of respecting the referendum result, should not any further reassurances be the moment for Labour Members to join us in supporting a practical compromise and in ending uncertainty?
The Prime Minister
I agree that it is important that, when it comes to the vote, Members from across this whole House should put the interests of this country first—the interests of delivering on the referendum and doing it in a way that does protect jobs and our security, which is exactly what this deal does.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Prime Minister, some of your junior Ministers—those on the payroll—have told other MPs that the backstop cannot be changed and that, if it were to be changed, Leo Varadkar would lose the Republic of Ireland election. We do need to have good relations with the Republic of Ireland, but, Prime Minister, you are the Prime Minister and all your responsibilities lie with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will the Prime Minister remind the members of her payroll team that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that there is no onus on any Member, or junior Minister, to be a cheerleader for the Taoiseach?
The Prime Minister
The reasons why we have negotiated what we have and why, as a Government, we are committed to Northern Ireland and to not having a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland have nothing to do with the views of the Taoiseach or of the Government of the Republic of Ireland. It is about the commitment that we believe that we should be giving to the people of Northern Ireland.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
If the UK sensibly and pragmatically continues to apply the Union customs code after Brexit, given that from the beginning of the new year we will have the new UK customs declaration service and the registered exporter system, which will replace certificates of origin, is it not the case that the European Union would not be acting in good faith if it insisted on its backstop, potentially out to 2099, as is cited in the withdrawal agreement?
The Prime Minister
I will be very clear with my hon. Friend that the backstop is, as is said in the withdrawal agreement and as was confirmed by the Council conclusions last week, intended to be temporary. Of course, article 50 does not allow for a permanent arrangement to be put in place. The existence of alternative arrangements that would enable us to provide that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland would ensure either that the backstop need not be used or, if it was used, that it could be replaced quickly by those arrangements.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
What advice does the Prime Minister have for my constituent who is stockpiling insulin? Does she believe that urgent measures need to be put in place for such vital provisions?
The Prime Minister
The Department of Health is, of course, making contingency arrangements for no deal. That is part of the preparations that are taking place, and it is entirely right for the Government to do that.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Securing the rights of British nationals living in the EU27 and the rights of EU nationals here in the United Kingdom is of the utmost importance for every Member of this House. In the absence of any alternative legal document, will the Prime Minister confirm that only her deal absolutely guarantees in law the rights of fellow Brits in the EU and EU nationals here?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I am very happy to give that confirmation to my hon. Friend. He is right to raise this issue. It was an issue in the early stages of the negotiations, when many Members of this House raised the question of citizens’ rights. Now we hear a lot about the backstop, but people omit to mention that the crucial issue of citizens’ rights is reflected in the protections and guarantees in the withdrawal agreement.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister continues to put on the pretence that somehow when the people voted, they gave permission only for her deal or no deal. She knows that when we leave the European Union, if we leave with no deal we will lose access to 40-plus international trade agreements covering trade with 70 countries, to EU criminal databases and to the EU single market, with which more than 70% of the UK’s exporting businesses trade. Indeed, there could be a delay of two to three years in new medicines reaching patients in the UK. She knows that there are other legal and political options, so is it not time for her to give herself a much better Christmas by having a vote in the House this week on her deal and then allowing Parliament to start to work together on how we move forward?
The Prime Minister
It was the vote that took place in 2016 that determined that we should leave the European Union. I believe that we should leave the European Union with a good deal, and this is a good deal. I believe that the alternatives that have been put forward in some cases do not deliver on the referendum and in other cases make the use of a backstop even more likely.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Prime Minister will recall my question last week about how we can ensure that it is clear that the UK cannot be forced to stay in the backstop indefinitely due to vetoes on extraneous issues. What comfort did she take from the comments of other European leaders, for example the Chancellor of Austria and the Prime Minister of Denmark, that that might be something the UK is able to secure?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Crucially, a number of European Union leaders made very clear their view about the backstop being temporary or not being used at all. They made it clear that they were willing to listen to further proposals in order to give greater clarification on that point. That is exactly why I think it is right that we carry on talking to the European Union about this matter.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
A hundred years ago, through the suffragettes, we saw women’s empowerment here in Parliament. Why does the Prime Minister not empower MPs here before Christmas, and why will she not empower the people with a second people’s vote?
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Lady to the answers I gave to those questions earlier.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
When President Juncker is not ruffling the hair of female colleagues—I think the Prime Minister got away lightly there—we know that he follows what is said in this House very carefully. He will have heard her say today, “No revocation of article 50 and no second referendum”, and I suspect that he does get some succour from some of the things said in this Chamber. Can she now state for President Juncker the exact date when the United Kingdom will be leaving the European Union?
The Prime Minister
We have that date in our legislation: it is 29 March 2019.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is not interested in the will of the people apart from on one day in 2016, and given that her minority Government were the first ever to be found in contempt and that she pulled the plug on the meaningful vote at the last minute last week, she clearly has little regard for the sovereignty of Parliament either. She has returned from her latest travels empty-handed due to her own red lines, so why will she not allow MPs to vote on her deal this week and consider extending article 50? It is the season of miracles and good will, but no one—no one at all—believes that this is all going to be neatly concluded by the end of March.
The Prime Minister
I have answered those questions previously. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), it is important that we follow up on the opportunity to seek these further political and legal assurances in relation to the concern that people have on the backstop. It is also important, as I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), that we look at the status of the political declaration, which is another issue that people have raised.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for reminding the House that 472 now-sitting Members decided to give a people’s vote in 2015; I suspect that if they had decided to keep the vote just to themselves, they would have voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, which means that there is now an in-built bias against delivering Brexit. So please steer a straight course, Prime Minister—the country expects us to deliver Brexit. A people’s vote is simply an opportunity to try to overturn the democratic vote.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly what this Government are doing—steering a course to deliver on what people voted for. We gave them the decision, we asked them to make that decision, they made that decision, and we should respect it.
The Prime Minister
What I am working on at the moment is to ensure that we can get the assurances necessary to deal with the concerns that people have on the deal that has been negotiated.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I like to think of myself as a friendly fellow, and I have no particular inclination to fall out with colleagues on either side of the Chamber based on the details of the Brexit deal. The one thing I have learned in politics is that it is perfectly reasonable to look at identical information and come to completely different conclusions—but on values, that is where I disagree. Does the Prime Minister agree that to have a second referendum would fundamentally undermine the principle of democracy?
The Prime Minister
I believe that there are many people who voted if not for the first time ever, certainly for the first time for a considerable number of years, in that referendum. They did so in the belief that the politicians were going to listen to them. I think that their belief and faith in politics and politicians, and in our democracy, would be shattered if they were asked to think again. We should deliver on the vote that took place.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I listened very carefully to the words that the Prime Minister used. When asked about indicative votes in the House, she said, “We have no plans.” When asked whether she would revoke article 50, she said, “This Government will not do that.” If the House voted to instruct the Government to revoke article 50, would she resign and make way for another Government who would carry out the wishes of the House?
The Prime Minister
This House voted to revoke article 50, and that would be going against the wishes of the people in the referendum in 2016.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
More than three quarters of my constituents voted to leave the European Union. Can the Prime Minister imagine anything more patronising than the idea that they need more democracy—to have another go? Does she agree that their instruction was very clearly that we should be getting on with it?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. His constituents thought when they voted that the Government were going to deliver on their vote, and that is exactly what we should do.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Prime Minister says that a further referendum would be divisive. It is not referendums per se that are divisive. The 2016 referendum would not have been divisive if the promises made were deliverable. The divisions in our country today only come from two and a half years of Brexit fantasies now hitting the wall of Brexit reality. Brexiteers see the Prime Minister’s deal as a betrayal, and remainers are furious because the whole Brexit argument was based on lies. Does she agree that, in our democracy, we should never be afraid of a public vote, but we should always oppose fantasies and false promises?
The Prime Minister
I assure the hon. Lady that no Member of this House is afraid of a public vote. Members put themselves up for public votes on a number of occasions in order to be elected to this House. There were two sides of the argument in the referendum. Arguments were put. People voted on their belief as to whether or not we should stay in the European Union, and I believe we should deliver on the vote that people gave.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Many here, including one or two senior members of the Cabinet, now refer to the “will of MPs”, which is nothing more than a fig leaf to remain. It was the will of the majority of MPs to give the people a vote. They did so, and now we must honour it. If we fall back on WTO terms, so be it. Lead us, Prime Minister—get this country free and end this rancour.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that it was the will of MPs that the decision as to whether to stay in the European Union be given to the people of this country. We did that, they voted to leave, and we should do it.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The House may be interested to know that Larry the cat at No. 10 just tweeted:
“Brexit update: Giving people a vote = breaking faith”
Does the Prime Minister agree?
The Prime Minister
I have made the point clearly this afternoon that I believe we should keep faith with the people by delivering on the vote that they gave in 2016.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I wanted to support this deal, and I want to support this deal. I thank the Prime Minister sincerely for listening to concerns, in particular about the backstop. Does she agree that it is essential that we give her the time necessary to secure the concessions that this House wants? I guarantee her that if she secures them, I will stand four-square behind her.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I thank him for pointing out that, having listened to the House, it is right that I am able to have time to argue that case with the European Union and seek those further assurances that would give confidence to not only him but other Members.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Prime Minister aware of the damage being caused to manufacturing—particularly automotive—by her failure to rule out no deal?
The Prime Minister
The manufacturing industry welcomed the fact that we have negotiated a deal and welcomed the trade arrangements that we have negotiated for the future partnership. I want to be able to deliver on that for them.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Ahead of the 2016 EU membership referendum, the Government spent more than £9 million of taxpayers’ money on leaflets delivered to every UK home advocating that we remain—but also, crucially, saying that whatever the outcome of the referendum, it would be enacted. Last year, 589 elected Members of this House stood on manifesto pledges to deliver the referendum result. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we will be leaving the European Union on 29 March next year, deal or no deal?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to confirm that we will be leaving the European Union on 29 March next year. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the significant number of Members who stood on a manifesto commitment to deliver on the vote that people took in 2016.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Prime Minister repeatedly claims that the Norway plus option would require a backstop, but on 3 December her Attorney General told me from the Dispatch Box that he could see no reason why Norway plus
“would not satisfy the stated objectives of the backstop”.—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 572.]
Can she confirm that she agrees with her Attorney General on that point?
The Prime Minister
The issue is partly about whether we have the customs union within the Norway plus model. However, the point about the backstop is that it is there to deal with the period from the end of a transition period to the new relationship—the new relationship being one that will deal with the guarantee to the people of Northern Ireland that there will be no hard border. In any alternative arrangement, it would be necessary to have that negotiation.
Norway-plus is not something that can just happen. This House might want to say it will happen; actually, Norway-plus requires such a negotiation, because we would have to negotiate to be a member of EFTA first in order to get such an arrangement in place. In doing that, there would therefore be a risk that there would be a period of time when no arrangement was in place, and that would require a backstop.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
There is growing concern—indeed, growing anger—among my constituents at the prospect of a second vote. They feel that their vote has been stolen from them. Bearing in mind that the advocates of a second vote talk about chaos, confusion and uncertainty, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that that would be the result of a second vote on a smaller turnout?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that there is concern—and I think there should be concern—about the divisive nature of a second referendum if that were to take place, and also concern about the fact, as he has said, that his constituents and many other people up and down the country trusted that the politicians were going to deliver on the vote that they gave in 2016. We have a duty to do so.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is clear that the Prime Minister has refused to rule out a no deal, refused to extend article 50 and refused to allow the option of a people’s vote. Can she now tell the House her plan if her deal does not make it through Parliament?
The Prime Minister
As I have said to a number of other hon. Members, if the hon. Lady and others want to ensure that there is not a no deal situation, they have to accept that the alternatives are either accepting a deal or no Brexit. I believe we should be delivering on Brexit, and I believe we should be doing it with a good deal for the UK.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
May I gently remind the Prime Minister that it is not only MPs in this place who have manifesto commitments to honour? The Scottish Government have manifesto commitments to honour, and it would be utterly undemocratic for anyone to try to stand in their way. Will the Prime Minister tell us how many people in this place stood on a manifesto that supported the chaos of a no deal? Given that the answer is none, surely that should be the first option that is taken off the table. We can then talk about what kind of deal we can get—and if we cannot get a decent deal, then not leaving should be put back on the table. Surely, giving those choices to the people is more democratic than forcing them out with a no-deal Brexit that nobody voted for.
The Prime Minister
Of course we can ensure that we do not leave with no deal. We can do that by ensuring that we leave with a deal, and a good deal for the whole of the United Kingdom.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Given that the Prime Minister has been on her feet for two hours, I think we are now convinced that she still agrees with herself but is listening to very few other people. Last week, no less a person than her predecessor Sir John Major called for an extension of article 50, but, stubbornly, she still refuses to listen to any advice on this. Please will the Prime Minister listen for once?
The Prime Minister
I have been listening, and that is exactly why we are having further discussions with the European Union in relation to the issue of the backstop—to seek the assurances that Members of this House want.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has said today that she is determined to frustrate another vote of the people, and she has done her level best to frustrate a vote in this Parliament. Does she understand why so many people here think that she is trying to confront and bully this House with a last-minute choice between her deal and no deal, even when she knows the catastrophic cost of no deal for swathes of our industry?
May I ask the Prime Minister to clarify for the House this afternoon the simple fact that, when it comes to a meaningful vote in January, this House will indeed be able to rule out no deal and, if necessary, extend article 50?
The Prime Minister
The motion will, of course, be amendable when it comes before the House in January. However, I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is about ensuring that we can get the assurances from the European Union—that is what we are working on—and bring them back to this House, having listened to the concerns that have been raised by Members of this House.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Prime Minister said in her statement that she is working on tackling the spread of deliberate, large-scale and systematic disinformation. Does that include the disinformation of Vote Leave and things printed on the side of buses?
The Prime Minister
A number of things were said on both sides of the campaign during the referendum on the European Union. The task we have before us is not to relive that referendum, but to get on with the job of delivering on it.
James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I talked to both sides in my constituency on Saturday. The Prime Minister knows about her Brexit-supporting MPs’ change of heart in her, but my constituents are wondering why she will not ask Bury for its conclusion on her botched deal. Does she regret spending so long appeasing the 1922 instead of building a deal that works for the 48 and the 52?
The Prime Minister
I think I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency voted to leave the European Union in the referendum. Those people who voted to leave will want the Government to deliver on that.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I know why my constituents voted the way they did. It was 58:42. They blamed Europe for the loss of our jobs in manufacturing as a result of the economy going towards finance. Thirty-four of the 43 local authorities are still 13% behind on wages from 2010 and have not recovered. That is why people voted. They have listened to what has been said, but you are not giving them a chance to vote on this offer. Your deal is terrible. It is not a good deal and we will be worse off. The same goes for no deal. Give us a choice. We should have a choice to vote in the House today on your offer.
Mr Speaker
That is a matter for debate but not a matter for me. The Prime Minister can defend her offer, and I am sure she will.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I say to the hon. Lady that the House will have a choice when the meaningful vote is brought forward on whether or not it accepts the deal that is on the table, and on what it wants in future. That choice will be available, just as the choice was available to her constituents, mine and others up and down the country in 2016 to decide whether or not to stay in the EU.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Sixty-two Members from four parties in the House have today written to the Prime Minister on the mounting concerns being expressed in our great manufacturing industries—automotive, aerospace, shipbuilding, bus building and food. We are walking towards a cliff, and if this uncertainty continues, the bad decisions that are being made for Britain will continue dramatically in the first quarter of next year. We have to have a degree of certainty. Without it, the future for many companies and workers will be catastrophic. Why does the Prime Minister not rule out now any question of a no-deal Brexit?
The Prime Minister
We have engaged with the manufacturing industry, including the automotive industry, which is very important to this country and jobs in this country. The manufacturing industry supported and welcomed the deal when it was negotiated. If the hon. Gentleman wants to support the manufacturing industry and wants to ensure that it has that certainty in future, he can support the deal.
Wes Streeting
The Prime Minister has pointedly not said that her deal is better than the one we have. What sort of Prime Minister puts a deal to Parliament knowing that it would make our country worse off than it would otherwise have been? What sort of Prime Minister could possibly countenance the reckless chaos of a no-deal Brexit? Is that not an insult to the office of Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman’s question appears to based on the premise that we should be looking at staying inside the European Union. The people voted for us to leave the European Union. The economic analysis shows that the best option that meets that requirement and protects jobs is the deal.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Like the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister has set herself firmly against putting this issue back to the people, clearly because they feel that the result this time would be different. Does she agree that both main parties in the House have come full circle, and that we have ended where we began: running scared of UKIP?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady suggests that I thought we should not have a second referendum because it might come out with a different result. Actually, no, I do not think it would come out with a different result. I just believe that when we said to people in 2016, “We give you the choice and we will abide by that choice,” we should stick by our word.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is the height of irresponsibility for the Prime Minister to pretend she can win a vote on her deal when every Member of this House, including her, knows she cannot. Nor is there a majority for no deal. When they are both voted down, what next? That question is fundamentally important to the future of this country. If she cannot or will not answer it, she should not be in office.
The Prime Minister
As we continue to work on further assurances on the deal, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that the vote will come before the House. The House will have its vote, and thereafter if the deal is not supported, the Government will bring forward their proposals for the future steps we will be taking.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
The Prime Minister claims to know what leave voters voted for in 2016, but when I surveyed thousands of my constituents, over half of leave voters said that they wanted to stay in the single market and almost as many said they wanted to be in the customs union. Now that they have seen the shape of the deal on the table—these are leave voters—16% said they had changed their mind and wanted to remain in the European Union. How can the Prime Minister not listen to voters? I hope she will spend the time over the next few weeks actually listening to voters who voted and not to her own rebellious Back Benchers.
The Prime Minister
I assure the hon. Lady that I do listen to voters and I do talk to voters. The overwhelming view given to me by voters is that they want to ensure we get on with delivering the 2016 vote.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Can the Prime Minister imagine any scenario whereby it would be in the national interest to extend article 50?
The Prime Minister
I have answered the question on extending article 50. I believe it is important for us to deliver on the vote that people took. We have it in our legislation that we will leave the European Union on 29 March 2019.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Who does the Prime Minister think will be held responsible if there is a no deal: the Executive, Parliament or the people who voted in 2016?
The Prime Minister
Members of this House will have a decision to take in relation to the deal and whether they want to leave the European Union with a deal.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is economically corrosive to delay the deal. For each day that passes, our economy is sliding down. People are becoming poorer and businesses are losing confidence. In the light of the political arithmetic that means the deal will fall, what discussions did the Prime Minister have with her European counterparts this weekend about alternatives, including the extension of article 50?
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Lady is concerned and wants to give certainty to business, there is one step she could take that would do that: back the deal.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
In light of the impact of the loss of EU citizens in the NHS, a 90% drop in nurses coming here and a trebling of the number of EU nurses leaving, the Prime Minister has sought in recent months to make it clear to EU citizens that they are welcome and they are secure. However, in her response to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) she implied that they would be secure only if her deal passes. Can she clarify that, because she has just scared more than 3 million people?
The Prime Minister
I know the hon. Lady has a very personal interest in this issue. The withdrawal agreement sets out the agreement that has been reached between the United Kingdom and the European Union on EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU. As a Government, we have been clear that we will protect the interests of European Union citizens in the UK if there is a no-deal situation, but of course I cannot at this stage guarantee what would be the situation for UK citizens in the EU 27. That is a matter for those countries and the EU to set forward. The reciprocal arrangement that guarantees both sides is what is in the withdrawal agreement.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s own red lines have brought us to this situation and she is now about to squander billions of pounds-worth of taxpayers’ money on preparing for no deal, when she knows that there is no majority in this House for no deal, so it is completely unjustifiable. If we need more time to negotiate, extending article 50 is the way forward, but she is yet again putting down another red line and stopping us taking the logical step of giving ourselves more time to sort out this situation. Is not that the right way forward?
The Prime Minister
I have responded to a number of questions in relation to that. This House, of course, will have a decision to take as to whether to accept the deal that is on the table. I am working to get those further assurances, as I have said, but this House will have a decision as to whether to accept that deal, and if that deal is voted down, the Government will have to come forward with their proposals for the next steps. The hon. Gentleman uses this phrase that a lot of people use, about red lines. Actually, what the Government have been doing is respecting the vote that people gave in 2016 on issues such as bringing an end to free movement and making sure that we leave the European Union.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Will the Prime Minister publish how many additional civil service jobs would be required either with her deal or no deal, and will she measure that against the number of civil service jobs that have been cut since the EU referendum?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the figures for the number of civil servants who have been employed and the numbers who are continuing to be employed in dealing with leaving the European Union, because of course, we are making contingency arrangements for no deal, but there are also a lot of preparations that are taking place that have involved the employment of more civil servants, which are actually about preparing for the deal.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
This embarrassing, reckless Brexit that we find ourselves perilously close to was begun to quell opposition within the Tory party, putting party before country. Now we have a Prime Minister putting her own interests above both party and country. When will the Prime Minister agree that with no majority for her deal, no deal or any other deal, the only democratic way forward is to put this back to the people for a people’s vote?
The Prime Minister
The party in this House that is putting party before country is the Labour party’s Front Bench, who are putting the interests of trying to bring about a general election before the interests of actually getting a deal that works for this country.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Some 78% of my constituents in Edinburgh North and Leith voted to remain and they are extremely concerned about the prospect of no deal, so I will repeat the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) asked, which the Prime Minister signally failed to answer. Will she publish her no-deal planning?
The Prime Minister
We are making preparations for no deal. These preparations are being stepped up. We are continuing to step up those preparations. We have already published a number of issues in relation to no-deal planning, through the technical notices that have been issued, and we will be continuing to make sure that the information that is provided externally is that which is necessary to ensure that people are prepared for the possibility of a no-deal scenario.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for making it very clear in her statement, in her words, that no deal risks jobs, services and security. Can I ask her to act as the leader of this great country and rule out no deal now?
The Prime Minister
The only way to rule out no deal is to ensure that there is a deal that enables us to leave the European Union.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has used a mantra ad nauseam: it is her deal or no deal—she almost repeated it again just then—but she must be aware that The Economist magazine, among many, many others, has said that a no-deal Brexit would wreck the economy. Why is she prepared to wreck the economy and can she justify that to the British people?
The Prime Minister
I believe that the best route forward for the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union with a good deal, and I believe that this is a good deal.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
One thing not contained in the Prime Minister’s statement on the Council conclusions is the future of the single market. She should know that leaving the single market risks 80,000 jobs in Scotland. Does she have any idea how many jobs would be lost in the Queenslie and Baillieston industrial estates if we left the single market?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman will know that it is clear in the political declaration that we will have a more ambitious trading relationship with the European Union than any other third country—we will become a third country when we leave the European Union. We have negotiated that deal and that future trading relationship, and that political declaration is the instructions to the negotiators for the future. We have negotiated that precisely with the need to ensure that we protect jobs in our minds. That is what that deal will do.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
With three quarters of a million jobs at risk with a no-deal Brexit, according to the UK Trade Policy Observatory—42,000 of them in my City of Westminster borough—is not it clear that no deal is the most disastrous outcome and that the Prime Minister is playing Russian roulette with people’s jobs? Given that one of the few options that could command a majority in the House is a measure to stop no deal, is not it the height of irresponsibility to make us wait a month for a meaningful vote, which will certainly be lost, and not commit to taking whatever action is necessary, including suspending article 50, to ensure that we do not drive the British economy off a cliff?
The Prime Minister
The House will have a decision to take and it will be in the House’s hands as to whether it wishes to support a deal. We cannot wish no deal away. If we are not going to leave with no deal, we have to have an arrangement and a deal with which to leave the European Union.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
In her statement, the Prime Minister talked about integrity and the millions who trusted in democracy. What does she say to those same millions who have witnessed the dark money scandal, Vote Leave breaking the law, cash for votes, the Government gerrymandering the Brexit Committees, a legitimate Bill of the Scottish Parliament being prevented from getting Royal Assent by her court action, and pulling the vote on the deal halfway through the debate? Where is the integrity on those matters? The people deserve their say.
The Prime Minister
I believe it was the case that the issue of the continuity Bill in Scotland was discussed with the Government at the time. The Government made clear their position in relation to that Bill and to this matter. There were discussions with the Scottish Government throughout the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and we have ensured at every stage that we have consulted and engaged with the Scottish Government and, indeed, the Welsh Government on these matters.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
We have endured months of obfuscation and prevarication, fudge and more fudge made in Maidenhead. The Prime Minister described perfect as the enemy of the good, but she will accept that good leadership demands a demonstration of the courage of one’s convictions. Prime Minister, we are in a serious crisis. Business demands action urgently. It is totally irresponsible and unacceptable to delay the vote until the weeks commencing 7 or 14 January. We need a vote now. If we do not have it before Christmas, please extend article 50 because businesses demand it.
The Prime Minister
Businesses have been clear that they want to see us leaving with a deal. They have welcomed the deal that we have negotiated and it is therefore in Members’ hands to recognise that when they come to vote.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Just so that I am clear, is the Prime Minister saying, beyond a shadow of a doubt, in all circumstances, that when her deal is voted down, she will not bring forward any option other than leaving without a deal?
The Prime Minister
I have been clear about the decision that Members will have to take. If the deal is voted down, it is very clear: we have the process set out in legislation that the Government will follow.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Over the weekend, we heard the news that many in the academic community were dreading: that immigration rules for EU nationals will be based on salary and perceived skill levels. Will the Prime Minister please elaborate on how categorisation of skill level will be done? Can she explain how we will continue to attract talented young researchers, who earn far less than £30,000?
The Prime Minister
It was not at the weekend that we said we would move to a skills-based immigration system; we have been clear about that for some months. The figure of £30,000 was the figure that was set out in the Migration Advisory Committee’s report.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has described a new vote on Europe as an act of bad faith. This is the Prime Minister who tried to deny Parliament a meaningful vote and then pulled the vote when she knew that she would lose. This is the Prime Minister who claimed that it was her way or no way, despite the option of revoking article 50. This is the Prime Minister who told 10,000 people from other EU countries living, working and contributing in my constituency that they had jumped the queue. Is she in any position to lecture anyone about what it means to act in good faith on this issue?
The Prime Minister
I simply repeat to the hon. Gentleman the points that I have made about the vote that took place in 2016, and about the duty that we have in relation to that.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
This morning, when I went to my old workplace, Glasgow Parcelforce, where parcels containing goods are moved about, workers told me that they were worried about this Brexit deal. In my constituency, where unemployment is rising, workers are worried about their future. Has the Prime Minister a Christmas message for them, or does she want to revert to the 2017 general election?
The Prime Minister
I believe that it is right for this country to leave the European Union. That is what people voted for. I believe that it is right for us to leave with a good deal, and I believe that we have a good deal. Members have expressed some concerns about a particular aspect of that, and I am working to reassure them on that particular point. I hope that it will then be possible for Members to recognise the importance of protecting jobs, and to support a good deal for leaving the EU.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The 48% seem to count for nothing any more. They did not vote for this descent into chaos, and many cautioned, “You should not leave unless you know where you are going.” Is it not time, in the national interest, to revoke article 50, not least to allow those who claim to speak for the 52% to sort out what they actually want?
The Prime Minister
Revoking article 50 means staying in the European Union and it is not possible to revoke article 50, to go back into the EU and then come out again in a few months’ time. The judgment of the European Court of Justice was absolutely clear on this point: revoking article 50 means staying in the European Union.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Democracy is a process, not a historical event in time, and it is essential for the public to maintain faith in that process. Can the Prime Minister give me one good reason why we should respect the result of a referendum that was mired in extensive cheating and rule breaking over having another referendum?
The Prime Minister
The referendum took place. The Government were clear at the time, and Parliament was clear at the time, that this was a choice for the British people. The British people chose, and I think we should deliver on that choice.
Points of Order
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have listened very carefully to all the answers that the Prime Minister gave during the lengthy exchange today. I have listened very carefully to what Members on all sides of the House have said and it is very clear that it is very bad—unacceptable—that we should wait almost a month before we have a meaningful vote on a crucial issue that faces this country. The Prime Minister obdurately refused to ensure that a vote took place on the date that she agreed. She refuses to allow a vote to take place this week, and I assume she now thinks that the vote will take place on 14 January—almost a month away. That is not acceptable in any way whatsoever.
As it is the only way I can think of to ensure that a vote takes place this week, I am about to table a motion which says the following: “That this House has no confidence in the Prime Minister due to her failure to allow the House of Commons to have a meaningful vote straight away on the withdrawal agreement and framework for future relationships between the UK and the European Union.” That motion will be tabled immediately, Mr Speaker. Thank you.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for what he has said. It requires no response from me, but it is on the record.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to a couple of questions from my hon. Friends, the Prime Minister implied that Scottish National party MPs and the Scottish Government were aware at the time the Bill was brought that the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill was outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that the Prime Minister has inadvertently overlooked the fact that last week the UK Supreme Court passed judgment in the case that was referred to by the Attorney General and found in fact that the Bill was within the competence of the Scottish Parliament when passed—all save one clause, clause 17—and that it was only the subsequent enactment of the EU withdrawal Act that retrospectively took powers away from the Scottish Parliament, meaning that the Bill was no longer within its powers.
Tory Members of the Scottish Parliament have been peddling misinformation about the Supreme Court judgment and there have been a number of inaccurate media reports over the last few days. I am certain that the Prime Minister would not mean to perpetuate misunderstandings about a judgment of the UK Supreme Court, Mr Speaker, and I seek your guidance on how I can put the matter straight and on the record.
Mr Speaker
I think that the hon. and learned Lady has found her own salvation. She is aware of the device—one might almost go so far as to call it a ruse—of an attempted, but in practice bogus, point of order to put across a particular point that is dear to her head and her heart, and she has succeeded in that mission with admirable clarity and eloquence. The point is on the record. It will be read in the Official Report, and I have a sense that the hon. and learned Lady will seek to spread copies of the Official Report far and wide, in her own constituency and doubtless beyond.
As far as Ministers are concerned, including the Prime Minister, it is of course incumbent on any Minister who thinks that he or she may inadvertently have given incorrect information to the House to correct the record. Whether in this case it has been decided to do so is not a matter for me, but I hope that the hon. and learned Lady feels that she has achieved her objective this afternoon.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Over the weekend, it became very clear that the Prime Minister has some strong views on certain subjects. One is her view on Tony Blair, which I know she shares with the Leader of the Opposition, and another is her view on the merits of a people’s vote, which she also shares with the Leader of the Opposition. But however intense the Prime Minister’s antipathy to a people’s vote may be, is it in order for her to leak chunks of her speech before coming to the House to make a statement, which contains the same chunks of her speech that were leaked to the press at 10.30 last night?
Mr Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise this matter. Certainly I agree, wholeheartedly and without equivocation, with the proposition that announcements of Government policy should be made in the House, and should not be preannounced to the media. That is not just a courtesy expected of the Government, but an important principle.
However, I think it only fair to add that the Government might, in this case, argue that the No. 10 press release to which the right hon. Gentleman referred contained no announcement of Government policy, but merely reiterated what the Prime Minister had told the House last week. I understand the sense of disquiet, even irritation, that the right hon. Gentleman feels, but I think that, in the name of even-handedness, it is reasonable for me to put that second point on the record to sit alongside, and to be judged against, the first.
Mr Speaker
I will come to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). I am saving him up. I do not want to squander the hon. Gentleman too early.
Frank Field
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Given your record of being a champion of Back Benchers against those on both Front Benches, may I ask whether there is a way in which those of us who want to move to a vote on what options are open to the country if we do not support the Government motion—which has been delayed for a month—could have the opportunity to express our views to establish whether there is agreement in the House on one or more lines of attack before we rise for the Christmas recess?
Mr Speaker
I indicated last week that there were two means by which the vote could be deferred. I will not rehash all that for the right hon. Gentleman or others, but he will recall that I thought there was a preferable way to do it, and a much less preferable way to do it. The Government chose the course that they did, and, as things stand, that course appears to be set.
I also explained to the House, and with a view to people outside this House, that whatever the Chair might think about matters of procedure, the Chair must operate within the powers of the Chair; manifestly, the Chair cannot operate ultra vires. The clear evidence, and all the precedents support this, is that an Order of the Day in respect of a piece of Government business can be moved only by a representative of the Government—that is to say by a Minister or a Government Whip. So I was able to express disquiet on behalf of many Members across the House at the sudden deferral of the vote, but I was not in a position to bring about the continuation of the debate or the vote upon it.
The right hon. Gentleman asks what recourse he has, and if he has any recourse, and I say to him that it is always possible for Members to table motions in this House. I am not exhorting him to do so, nor am I discouraging him from doing so; the right hon. Gentleman is extremely experienced and knows that that option exists. He has a motion on the paper; he can seek to gather support for that motion, or if another motion that is judged to be pertinent to his objectives is tabled, he can seek to garner support for such an approach.
My role is to serve this House. I would be perfectly happy to chair debates over the Christmas period; I would be perfectly happy to come back on 2 January and sit in this Chair. Millions of people are going to be working on 2 January, and we could do that, but it is not for me to say when the House should sit, when it should debate and when it should vote. That has to be determined by others, but I am here to serve and if the House decided it wanted to proceed at a faster pace it would be my responsibility to be here, and I would gladly accept that responsibility.
Frank Field
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be in order if one or more of the Opposition parties gave their time early in the new year so we could reassemble and vote on the six or so options you might choose? Would that be in order even if the Government had not moved their own motion?
Mr Speaker
My sense is that for the date upon which the House sits to be changed would very likely require a conversation; I am speaking, I say to the right hon. Gentleman for the avoidance of doubt, off the top of my head, but that almost certainly would require a conversation and agreement between the usual channels. If there were such an agreement, nothing is impossible.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that there is a supply of Opposition days, but the Government will normally give an indication of when there will be an Opposition day, and that is usually a matter of negotiation between the two sides; it is not something on which the Speaker can rule. But I do not say that what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting is impossible; what I am suggesting is that there seems to be some distance to travel between his aspiration and its realisation.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point of order of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) about the Prime Minister’s response to my question in her statement, as the Prime Minister has inadvertently overlooked the facts of the matter in terms of the UK withdrawal from the EU Bill of the Scottish Parliament, when does convention in this House suggest that the Prime Minister be expected to correct the record as a courtesy to the House so as to be accurate, particularly given the office she holds in the United Kingdom?
Mr Speaker
If an error is judged to have been made, the correction should be made with dispatch. In other words, if a Member believes that he or she has erred, there should not be delay; the record should be corrected without delay.
Good Work Plan
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
I would like to make a statement on the good work plan published today, which sets out the Government’s vision for the future of the UK labour market and how we will implement the recommendations arising from the Matthew Taylor review of modern working practices.
The Taylor review was commissioned by the Prime Minister to examine the current labour market and the employment law framework to help us understand the opportunities of future working practices as well as to identify areas where it is not working for everyone. The Government responded to the review in February, accepting the vast majority of the recommendations. Alongside this response, we also launched four consultations to seek views on how best to implement the recommendations. I am very grateful to everyone who took the time to respond; their insights have been invaluable in informing our policy development.
The good work plan I am publishing today sets out a programme for ensuring the UK labour market continues to thrive in the future. The UK labour market has a very positive record in recent years. Since 2010 we have higher employment and lower unemployment in every region and every nation of the United Kingdom, and wages are now growing at their fastest pace in almost a decade. This success has been underpinned by an employment law and policy framework that combines flexibility with protections for workers.
New ways of working and the rise of new employment models offer great opportunities, including innovative products and services for consumers, as well as new ways in which individuals can find work, earn a living and develop their talents. Our industrial strategy set out a long-term plan to embrace the opportunities presented by these changes and to boost the productivity and earning power of people throughout the UK.
Good work and developing better jobs are at the centre of the vision of the industrial strategy, so I am proud to be the first Secretary of State to take responsibility for promoting the quality of work as well as the creation of new jobs. I have written to the independent Industrial Strategy Council to ask for its participation in considering the best ways to measure the quality of work in the United Kingdom, and I am very pleased that Matthew Taylor serves as a member of the new Industrial Strategy Council.
Another core element of the quality of work agenda is ensuring we address the challenges for employment law and policy that the Taylor review identified. Most UK employers do the right thing and ensure their workers benefit from the rights and protections to which they are entitled. We will not allow these high standards to be breached by a minority who try to deny workers their just entitlements.
Among these reforms are steps to improve clarity for both employers and workers. Matthew Taylor recommended that the Government should do more to help individuals and businesses understand their rights and obligations. He highlighted that the existing employment status tests have contributed to a lack of clarity for both individuals and employers. We agree with this conclusion and will legislate to make improvements to reflect the reality of modern working relationships.
Matthew Taylor also recommended that renewed effort should be made to align the employment status frameworks for the purposes of employment rights and tax to ensure that the differences between the two systems are reduced to an absolute minimum. Again, we agree and will bring forward detailed proposals to align the two frameworks. We are also committed to addressing what Matthew Taylor termed one-sided flexibility, where too much risk has been transferred to the individual, sometimes to the detriment of their financial security and personal wellbeing. We will legislate to give all workers a right to request a more predictable contract and address the obstacles employees can face in building up continuous service. We will also legislate to end the injustice faced by waiters and waitresses and other staff in hospitality whose tips left by customers for them are diverted to their employers.
Another fundamental reform that Matthew Taylor proposed was the repeal of the so-called Swedish derogation, which exempts agency workers from equal pay requirements. Therefore, the Government are today bringing forward legislation to prevent this type of contract from being used to avoid meeting the legitimate rights of agency workers. We are also today laying legislation to extend workers’ rights, including the right to a written statement and making this available to all workers from day one. We are also bringing forward legislation to provide workers with a longer reference period for the calculation of holiday pay and reforming regulations to make it easier for employees to have their voice heard in the workplace. This demonstrates how we are putting the good work plan into action immediately.
We also recognise the vital role effective enforcement plays in ensuring confidence to challenge when the law and regulations are broken and in creating a level playing field between businesses. Matthew Taylor called on the Government to improve access to justice in the workplace. We have already committed to extending state enforcement on behalf of vulnerable workers to the underpayment of holiday pay, and the good work plan sets out how this approach will mirror the tough financial penalties and enforcement approach that already apply to the underpayment of the national minimum wage. We are also taking steps to improve the effectiveness of employment tribunals, quadrupling the penalties that they can impose for persistent breaches of employment law. We want to continue to improve the enforcement landscape further, and in the light of forthcoming policy changes, we will also consider the case for creating a new single labour market enforcement agency, to better ensure that vulnerable workers are more aware of, and can exercise, their rights and that businesses will be able to deal with a single body on matters relating to their workplace.
The good work plan sets out a vision for the future of the UK labour market—a labour market that rewards people for hard work, that celebrates good employers and that is ambitious about boosting productivity and the potential for everyone in the UK to improve their earnings. I am grateful to Matthew Taylor and his panel, as well to the many other individuals and organisations that have contributed to the review of modern working practices and our subsequent consultations. Their input has been invaluable in helping the Government to ensure that the UK labour market is ready to embrace future opportunities without detriment to workers’ rights. I would also like to thank the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the Work and Pensions Committee and the Scottish Affairs Committee for their continued contributions to the scrutiny of the recommendations and for the recommendations that they have made.
Alongside the good work plan, the Government are today publishing their response to the first full strategy from the director of labour market enforcement. Sir David Metcalf’s strategy was published on 9 May 2018 and made 37 recommendations on labour market enforcement and raising awareness of employment rights. The Government’s response accepts the vast majority of the recommendations and sets out the steps that the Government will take forward on raising awareness of employment rights, on improving intelligence gathering on abuses of those rights and on strengthening enforcement efforts. I will be placing a copy of this document in the Library of the House. The Home Secretary and I look forward to working with Sir David as the Government implement the recommendations we have accepted and as he prepares to set clear strategic priorities in the 2019-20 labour market enforcement strategy.
As Matthew Taylor concluded, the British model works. We have high employment, low unemployment and a long-standing and proud record of high standards for workers. We will consistently be in the vanguard of reform to maintain this reputation as new technologies and new opportunities for workers become available. This response to Taylor is in keeping with these high standards, and I commend this statement to the House.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, but behind his declaration on high employment lies a dark truth. Nearly 4 million people are in insecure work, with 1.1 million working in the gig economy. At a time of low wages, stagnating productivity and endemic financial insecurity across the UK, I had hoped for something big today. I was hoping for proposals that would not only make our workforce feel secure but ensure that their human capital was genuinely valued as the linchpin of Britain’s industrial strategy. Proposals for a labour inspectorate, the abolition of the Swedish derogation and ensuring that workers keep their tips were among Labour’s policies to transform our labour market, so I am pleased that, after a hard-fought campaign by Labour Members and our trade unions, these points have finally made an appearance in the Government’s good work plan. However, as the TUC stated today, despite these small victories, the remaining
“reforms as a whole won’t shift the balance of power in the gig economy.”
Let me deal with just a few of the proposals.
First, the good work plan states at the outset:
“The Prime Minister has committed that we will not only maintain workers’ rights as the UK leaves the EU, but enhance them”,
but even that opening paragraph is a little—shall we say?—constructive with reality. The Government’s withdrawal agreement fails to live up to this commitment on workers’ rights, and the Institute for Public Policy Research has stated that
“the non-regression clause will not maintain current protections in full, enforcement procedures would be ineffective and if the EU were to raise standards, there would be no requirement for the UK to follow suit”.
Can the Secretary of State confirm today that if standards on workers’ rights increase within the EU, UK standards will follow suit?
Secondly, it appears that the critical point on employment status is equally ambiguous. People on the margins need to know whether they are employees, workers or neither. Do they qualify for unfair dismissal and redundancy or not? The Government are committing to legislating to improve the clarity of the tests, but there is no detail. Can the Secretary of State confirm the legal principles on which each status is likely to rest?
Thirdly, the Government will allow workers on zero-hours contracts to request a more predictable and stable contract. That all sounds rather lovely, but the Secretary of State must know that an ability to request stable hours exists now. What does not exist is an obligation on the employer to meet such a request. The Government’s paper is silent on that point. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the proposed draft legislation will address that deficiency? If it fails to do so, zero-hours contract workers will—as the TUC so poetically put it today—have
“no more leverage than Oliver Twist”.
The fourth critical issue is enforcement, on which there is again very little detail in the Government’s plan. This is not simply a question of shuffling the deck. The Government need to ensure that the enforcement agency has power and resources. In the light of the already swingeing cuts to bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive, can the Secretary of State confirm what financial commitments are being made to ensure that this proposal is financially supported?
Finally, on the proposal for increased penalties following successful employment tribunal claims, I am not against the principle but I fear that this is just window dressing. The TUC has stated that the current system for enforcing employment tribunal awards is not fit for purpose, with 35% of successful claimants not receiving any compensation. Can the Secretary of State tell us how increasing fines will address this? Will he also tell us what additional action he is taking to address the efficacy of tribunal award enforcement? The horrific tales of insecure workers swirl around us like passages from a Charles Dickens novel, from delivery drivers being forced to urinate in bottles to zero-hours staff giving birth in workplace toilets. The Government’s proposals were an opportunity to improve the lives of those workers, but sadly they fall dramatically short, and those workers face a Dickensian future unless the Government take serious action to protect and enforce the intrinsic value of their human capital within our economy.
Greg Clark
I would have thought that the hon. Lady might have congratulated Matthew Taylor, who worked for her party in the past. Along with his panel, he has devoted himself to producing a report that most people conclude is a substantial one. He has made a series of far-reaching recommendations, which we are enacting today. The central basis of his report is to reflect on the fact that we should build on success. He refers to the UK’s successful record in creating jobs, including flexible jobs, that open up work to people with different needs. That is an important step forward that I would have thought the hon. Lady welcomed. When it comes to the condition of employees and workers in this country, Matthew Taylor noted that, far from the Dickensian caricature that she fell into the trap of describing, the average take-home pay for someone in full-time employment in this country, if tax levels and tax credits are taken into account, is higher than in the rest of the G7. We also have higher employment than at any time in our history and lower unemployment than at any time in 40 years, and the hon. Lady should have welcomed that.
The hon. Lady mentioned zero-hours contracts, but what she did not mention—[Interruption.] She mentioned the gig economy, by which I think she was referring to zero-hours contracts. At the moment, 2.4% of workers have flexible zero-hours contracts, and the number is falling. It has fallen from more than 900,000 a year ago. The key thing is that two thirds of those workers do not want an increase in hours. Nearly 20% of them are in full-time education. Matthew Taylor therefore concluded correctly that to ban zero-hours contracts, as the hon. Lady would, would do a disservice to, and go against the interests of, the people who benefit from them.
As for the scale of our response, the last set of measures to change and reform employment rights to this extent came over 20 years ago in the Employment Rights Act 1996 and not, coincidentally, under the previous Labour Administration, reflecting the fact that it is always Conservatives in government who put in protections for workers. The Labour party can criticise, but it did not take the opportunity to make the reforms that the hon. Lady mentioned. The hon. Lady also mentioned the alignment of the test for employment and for taxation. Matthew Taylor was clear in his report that it is a complex matter that will take some time to bring into effect and that we should consult carefully on it, and the Select Committees have endorsed that recommendation. We have said that we are committed to ending the disparity and to bringing the difference to a conclusion, and she should welcome that.
Finally, the hon. Lady mentioned the European Union, referring to the fact that we will be able to set our own employment policies once we leave the European Union. The Prime Minister has been clear that not only will we not reduce the protections that workers enjoy, but we will increase them, and today shows that. We are laying legislation this very day that goes far beyond the rights that are currently available in the European Union. The hon. Lady should have confidence in the ability of this House and this country to lead the world in employment rights, and I am proud that our Government are doing it.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement on how he and the Government plan to take forward the Taylor review. He is right that too much risk has been transferred to the individual in many circumstances, but I am a little puzzled as to why there is still so little action to strengthen protections for pregnant women. That action was promised around two years ago following a Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into maternity discrimination, which highlighted the fact that more than 50,000 women a year leave their jobs because they are pregnant. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what is being done to enhance such protections and to ensure that more women who are contributing so much to our economy are able to stay in work even when they are pregnant and afterwards?
Greg Clark
My right hon. Friend, who is Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, will be pleased to note that the package announced today is not the first or the only set of powers that will strengthen workers’ protections. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), will respond shortly and enthusiastically to the recommendations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), and I hope that she will welcome the further extension of protections for pregnant women.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement, which contained a couple of things to welcome. First, the Scottish National party has long called on the Government to repeal the Swedish derogation loophole and ensure that agency workers are protected and treated fairly. It is therefore welcome news that the Government are closing a loophole that has allowed unscrupulous employers to circumvent equal pay entitlements for far too long. Secondly, we are pleased to see an increase in fines for employers who breach workers’ rights, which has been long in the waiting.
However, there are measures that miss the mark or are missing completely from the statement. There is nothing to tackle zero-hours contracts, but perhaps the most disappointing of all is the absence of any meaningful action. It is extraordinary that this Government say that they have a good work plan and yet they utterly fail to tackle zero-hours contracts. The measures also do not address the damage done to workers’ rights by the regressive Trade Union Act 2016, which was designed to strike at the heart of trade unions’ abilities to organise and support workers. The SNP believes that a modern and progressive approach to industrial relations and trade unionism is at the heart of being able to achieve fair work.
The measures also do nothing to ensure that people are paid a real living wage. In addition to expecting people to work for less than a real living wage, this Government are presiding over a period of wage growth decline. Contrast that with the Scottish Government, who have got behind the real living wage accreditation scheme, which has led to over 1,000 employers now paying the real living wage, covering nearly 82% of workers in Scotland. The Secretary of State also failed to take any action to end the discrimination of young people in the labour market, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) has long called for.
The statement does nothing to tackle unpaid work trial shifts. The Government call this a good work plan, but they still refuse to end the practice of unpaid trials, and the Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) needs support. The measures also offer no protections for gig economy workers, but the Secretary of State could do that by supporting the progress of the Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), which would define the status of workers in the law. This Government should be doing much more work on workers’ rights, and they need to bring it forward.
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Scottish Affairs Committee’s inquiry into the future of working practices in Scotland was warm in its endorsement of the Taylor report’s key recommendations that we are implementing today. I therefore hope that he will continue to support it.
The hon. Gentleman mentions zero-hours contracts, which were the subject of one of Matthew Taylor’s central pieces of analysis. On the basis of rigorous and extensive research across all parts of the United Kingdom, he concluded:
“To ban zero hours contracts in their totality would negatively impact many more people than it helped.”
If we commission an independent report that has authority and depth of research and it makes such a clear recommendation, we ought to act on it. That is what we are doing in our response. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the national living wage, but he did not refer to the fact that 117,000 people in Scotland have gained over £2,750 since its introduction. However, I note of course that the Scottish Government’s decision to increase taxes on working people has meant that over a million Scots are actually receiving less in take-home pay than they otherwise might. If we are looking at the welfare of workers in Scotland, we need to look at what they pay in tax as well.
It gives me no pleasure to point out to the hon. Gentleman that Scotland under the SNP has had the slowest rate of job growth of all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Indeed, if Scotland had matched the UK’s rate of job growth, nearly 200,000 more Scots would have a job. It is right to build on Matthew Taylor’s analysis of how to build on the success while extending protections. I look forward to working with Derek Mackay and the Scottish Government, because many aspects of the report, such as education policy, are relevant to people’s ability to earn more. Through our industrial strategy, we will work together, but a little more humility from the hon. Gentleman in his criticisms might be appropriate.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Amid all the Brexit fog, I have to say that this is the best news I have heard from the Government for weeks. This is an example of the Conservatives truly being the workers’ party of the United Kingdom, and I strongly welcome what the Secretary of State said about agency workers, because many constituents have suffered as a result of the Swedish derogation.
Turning to apprentices, a fifth of apprentice at levels 2 and 3 were not paid the apprentice minimum wage, which was highlighted by the Education Committee in our report on apprentices. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has prosecuted fewer than five employers, and Sir David Metcalf, the director of labour market enforcement, said that we should increase fines and seek more criminal prosecutions against the companies involved. On top of the excellent work that Sir David has done, will the Secretary of State ensure that apprentices’ rights are first and foremost in his work?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his endorsement. The great reforms being made in response to, in this case, a very good report are happening at pace—we are tabling legislation this very day—but he, like me, is sometimes frustrated that the reforms do not get the attention they merit, but he gives me the opportunity to draw the House’s attention to them today.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about apprentices. A key part of the industrial strategy is to increase the quality and the number of apprenticeships, to which he has made a distinguished contribution. It is vital that apprentices should be paid what they are due in terms of the minimum wages. We have doubled the enforcement budget for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and the measures we have set out—we are working very closely with Sir David Metcalf—will make sure it is clearly understood by every employer that paying the minimum wages, whether for apprentices or others, is not optional but essential if they are to trade in this country.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The Select Committees on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and on Work and Pensions concluded that workers frequently rely on employment tribunals to enforce their rights and recommended punitive fines on employers for breaches of law. The Government are increasing the potential payouts for those who get to tribunal, which I warmly welcome, but they are refusing to reduce tribunal fees. Will the Secretary of State pledge to look at that again? Will the Government listen to Sir David Metcalf, the director of labour market enforcement, who said today that he is disappointed that the Government have rejected his recommendation of greater penalties for non-compliance in paying the minimum wage?
Will the Secretary of State tell us how many more cases need to be won against employers like Uber, Hermes and Addison Lee before the Government act, name and shame and properly punish these businesses that wrongly classify their workers as self-employed and deny them the rights to which they are entitled?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, for her comments and for welcoming our increase in penalties. It is essential that we send a message that people’s employment rights are non-negotiable and that they must be paid.
We work closely with Sir David Metcalf, a man for whom I have the greatest admiration. The reason for not increasing, at this stage, the penalties available to the authorities for non-compliance with the national minimum wages is that the penalties were increased about 18 months ago. We have not ruled it out, but we have said that we will look at the effect of the increase and consider it.
The hon. Lady will be aware that a big increase in penalties for employers that persistently breach the verdicts of employment tribunals would be very welcome. Again, we will keep under review the employment tribunals regime to make sure that people have access to the justice they need, but when her Committee considers its response to the report I hope it will agree and endorse what is a substantial package that, in many ways and in many respects, goes beyond what was proposed both by Matthew Taylor, important though his contribution has been, and by the Committee. We have gone further than many people expected, which is quite right given the importance of employment rights in this country.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
In 1961, under another Conservative Government, we signed the social charter, a Council of Europe treaty that is still in force and that enshrines workers’ rights. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the rights he is now talking about follow in that same legal tradition?
Greg Clark
I am delighted to have a history lesson from my hon. Friend. I do not think he was there at the time to witness that important breakthrough, but it is important to remind ourselves, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) did, that the Conservative party has always believed that free enterprise should be associated with high standards for consumers, for workers and for members of our community. That is very much in our tradition, and it has not required imposition from outside this Parliament. We embrace our responsibilities with enthusiasm.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
As the Secretary of State knows, we have had reports from Select Committees and from Andrew Forsey and myself on how the gig economy works to the detriment of careworkers, Hermes couriers, Uber drivers, DPD couriers, Parcelforce drivers and Deliveroo drivers who are forced into self-employment against their will. When his package of reforms hits the statute book, will he be able to give all those workers a guarantee that no one in this country will be forced into self-employment against their will?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and the Work and Pensions Committee for their proposals. He and the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, have suggested a Bill so that these measures could be enacted straightaway. We have acted in that spirit, and this day we have tabled a large number of statutory instruments to bring them into effect immediately.
My ambition is exactly as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) says, that the flexibility of the gig economy is offered rather than compelled, and that flexibility, in the words of Matthew Taylor, should be two-sided, rather than one way. That is the intention of this package of reforms. The Work and Pensions Committee will be rigorous in scrutinising the effects, but that is precisely the intention of the reforms.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned the Dickensian and Edwardian eras. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when we consider the Mines and Collieries Act 1842 that took children out of mines and collieries, the Artisans’ and Labourers’ Dwellings Improvement Act 1875 that cleared the slums and paved the way for the Peabody Trust homes that are loved to this day, and the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897 that imposed a duty on employers to compensate workers injured at work, this is the party—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. This is a statement. We do not have heckling during a statement. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question, and then everyone will have a chance to ask their questions in the same way.
James Cleverly
I will not start again from the beginning. The Conservative party, in government, has more than a century of tradition of protecting and enhancing workers’ right. The Secretary of State’s proposals are in a long tradition of looking to the future and realising the importance of the people whose work underpins our economic growth.
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Continuing the historical theme, I would add Shaftesbury’s Factory Acts, which were foundational to ensuring that the industrial revolution could not trample on workers’ rights and that those rights were protected. To bring it further up to date, I pay tribute to Lord Hague’s Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which is also in this firm Conservative tradition that I am proud to be taking forward today.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Despite what the Secretary of State says, in the two and a half years since the Prime Minister promised to act on workers’ rights we have had a review, we have had a consultation on the review, we have had a consultation on the consultation and, now, we have a plan but no legislation. The press release refers to building on the Government’s record, but the Government have not yet tabled a Bill. May I offer him my ready-made private Member’s Bill, the Employment and Workers’ Rights Bill, which would immediately end the Swedish derogation, offer insecure workers a proper right to a contract and finally give people in precarious work the security they need?
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady is misinformed. The legislation has been tabled today.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Flexibility in our labour market is to be welcomed but exploitation is not. Sadly this distinction is too often missed by those on the Labour Front Bench in their pursuit of ideological dogma. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the impact of banning exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts?
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I welcome the announcement about the Swedish derogation—it would be churlish not to—but I was surprised that there was no mention in the statement of people with disabilities. If this country is to punch above our weight in an increasingly competitive world, we will have to empower people with disabilities as never before; it would be folly not to use their skills and knowledge in the future. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the 21st century economy works for our disabled people?
Greg Clark
I mentioned the Disability Discrimination Act, which was a landmark piece of legislation. One aspect of enforcement and clarity that the new regulations and legislation will bring in is on the right to be free from discrimination, including on grounds of disability, to make sure that that is, first, clearly understood and, secondly, more effectively enforced. This is a further step to promote that very important set of rights for workers.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I very much welcome the tone and content of the Secretary of State’s statement. Torbay’s economy is very dependent on the tourism industry, where there are not only many gig workers who literally undertake gigs, but those who do part-time or agency work. How does he see the plans he is setting out today striking the balance between the need to have an industry that can employ seasonally and flexibly, and ensuring that workers can have certainty in their employment?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend speaks from great experience; he knows that the report and these reforms seek to capture the right balance. That includes making sure that the tourist industry, for example—which, to a certain extent, is seasonal—can operate in such a way that it is possible to take people into employment during times of peak demand, and so enable prospering during the year, while recognising that people have a legitimate reason for wanting to build a career in the hospitality sector and giving them the right to request a stable contract.
I want to remind the House of the emphasis that Matthew Taylor puts on good work, looking at how we can increase the level of skills and opportunities for advancement in work. That is an important part of the industrial strategy and of the reforms we are making. As well as the protections for workers, giving greater opportunity is very much the hallmark of this report.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I welcome this long overdue statement and, in particular, the ending of exploitative pay between assignment contracts. I congratulate, in a heartfelt way, Sally Bridge and all at the Communications Workers Union who have campaigned for so long for this. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), and indeed her predecessor, for meeting me about this matter.
But is this not a work in progress? Is there not so much further to go, given that important British employers now use the living wage to reduce people’s terms and conditions? These loopholes need to be ended, so that a fair day’s work gets a fair day’s pay.
Greg Clark
I completely agree with what the hon. Lady said at the end about her aspiration, and I am grateful for her endorsement of the reform. Of course, our vision for our economy is that we should see continually rising standards and opportunities for workers; that has been in our tradition and it is strategically in our interest as well. If we want to compete with other nations, that should be based on the quality and excellence of our work, rather than on a competition based on low standards. Now and in the future, we will look to build on these standards, but I am grateful that she recognises that this is a very important step forward today.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
The good work plan is, in many ways, the first Government document to really wrestle with the changes technology has brought about on workers. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has brought in meaningful changes, but he has not imposed things that would limit the future flexibility of both employers and employees, so this country can maximise the opportunities of that industrial revolution rather than have that done unto us by other countries.
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. His expertise tells him that when technological changes come about, we want to be in a position to embrace them, rather than keep them at bay. This is the first report, the first investigation in the world, that looks at the changes that technologies are making to the labour market. By getting ahead of the game, it allows us to prepare for that, so that we can embrace those changes with confidence, knowing that they would lead to high standards, rather than, as I am afraid some Opposition Members have advocated, keep them at bay and restrict the deployment of technology. That is not in the interests of workers or consumers.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I am not necessarily sure we should take historical lectures from a political party that introduced the Masters and Servant Act 1823, which determined which devices could be used to discipline workers. Does the Secretary of State not agree that the biggest single factor in reducing zero-hours contracts is trade union activity? If he does agree with that, should we not present legislation that says that zero-hours contracts should be allowed only where there is a collective agreement with a recognised trade union, as is sensibly written in the Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill?
Greg Clark
I do not agree with that, but I think the ability for workers to be part of receiving information and of the consultation on the practice of their businesses is very important. Part of the reforms we are bringing in will lower the threshold for workers in companies to be included in requirements to be involved in the future direction of their company and to be given information. So there is an increase in participation, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least welcome that.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
A young, highly vulnerable member of my constituency who has a long history with mental health services did exactly what the Government ask—she went out and took a job as a cleaner. Unfortunately, at the place she was cleaning the workers had no rights to go to the toilet without losing pay, so they started using the waste paper bins as toilets. When emptying a bin, my constituent found herself covered in urine. When she complained to the management, she faced bullying from the workforce, who were going to lose pay because of the need to go to the toilet. Will the Minister agree to ensure that whatever legislation he brings forward will cover workers’ rights on pay and going to the toilet, so that they are not forced into the humiliating position of having to use waste bins rather than lose pay?
Greg Clark
I am shocked at the example the hon. Lady gives; it is a disgraceful example of the kind of practices that have no place in any 21st-century country, let alone the UK. I can confirm to her that as part of the clarity we are bringing to the different categories of workers, employees and the self-employed, we will make it crystal clear that if someone is regarded as self-employed, they cannot be imposed on in terms of the detailed working hours, and if they are an employee, of course they are entitled to breaks, including comfort breaks. The ambiguity has in some unscrupulous examples been used to intimidate and bully in the way that she describes.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
There are proposals to welcome in this statement, but it says an awful lot about this Government that they have to stretch back more than 100 years to find good examples of advancing Conservative employment laws. The Secretary of State could have talked about the doubling of the length of time that employees have to wait to enjoy full employment rights, which was introduced in 2012. He could have talked about the employment tribunal fees introduced in 2013 or about the draconian Trade Union Bill introduced in 2015. Under this Conservative Government, even the Prime Minister’s job security is not all that safe either.
Companies such as Uber are subject to licences awarded by public authorities, so may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look carefully and seriously at whether licensing authorities such as the Mayor of London, Transport for London and others could take into account employment rights and practices before awarding licences, or indeed—I am thinking across Government here—awarding contracts?
Greg Clark
I mentioned some recent examples of legislation, to which I might add the national living wage, which has made a huge difference and led to the fastest growth in the rate of pay for the lowest earners in 20 years. When it comes to the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave, my intention is clear: whoever someone works for in the gig economy, their rights should be clear and fair. Whether they are regulated by the Mayor of London or are not subject to regulation, those rights should be unambiguous, clear and enforced.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
If an individual’s employment status is established, that individual themselves has the key to unlock different sets of rights. Matthew Taylor recommended that employers should bear the burden of proof; why has the Secretary of State moved that burden on to employees or workers, who will have to establish their employment status?
Greg Clark
As of today, the new legislation that we have introduced will give the right to a day-one written statement of the rights of workers. They will be told unambiguously, as of right, what they are entitled to as part of their employment. The separate issue, which the hon. Lady might be eliding with that one, is whether the different rights associated with different categories of employment or self-employment are clear enough. That will require some changes in the law and regulations, to which we have committed, but the combination of the entitlement to day-one clarity and some further changes to reduce some of the ambiguity between the categories will achieve what the hon. Lady intends.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Generally speaking, this plan is a step forward for workers’ rights in the UK but, as always, it is a war of attrition. I have particular concern about workers who are in distressed enterprises that face closure, many of whom have seen long-standing issues. For example, in my constituency we have heard in the past couple of days the announcement that a railway works that has been in existence since 1856 is threatened with closure, even though it has been through several owners since 2013 and in the process the workers have surrendered so much of their right to their pension entitlements. The works has effectively been asset-stripped by a company called Knorr-Bremse, which transferred it to a German company, and it then went under the term of a company called Gemini Rail Services.
Will the Secretary of State reflect on the situation facing the workers at that plant, look into the issues facing the heavy maintenance and overhaul of the railway industry in the UK, and undertake to meet me to discuss the particular difficulties faced by the heavy maintenance and overhaul industry in the UK railway sector? It is facing real crisis. We need to take action to protect those jobs and vital skills, particularly in Springburn in my constituency.
Greg Clark
It would obviously not be appropriate for me to comment on that particular case at the Dispatch Box without making myself more familiar with it, but I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, or for one of my colleagues to do so. More generally, the treatment of workers and pensioners in respect of companies in trouble is subject to a separate set of reforms that the Government are introducing. I would be happy to take the hon. Gentleman through them when we meet.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I thank Matthew Taylor for the work that went into his report, because it was a really fantastic piece of work.
Throughout the course of our inquiries, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee heard some really horrific studies of what is happening in the modern workplace. Many of those practices will be outlawed by the proposals in the White Paper and what has been announced today, if it is all implemented in the right way, and I congratulate the Secretary of State on that. He said in his statement that the Government will
“make it easier for employees to have their voice heard in the workplace.”
That is a far cry from having workers on boards, as the Prime Minister announced some years back. Why is there not a more ambitious and clearer plan to include workers’ voices that would give them the voice that the Prime Minister herself said they would get a few years ago?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to commend Matthew Taylor on the quality of his work and the recommendations. On workforce participation, he will know from his work on the Select Committee that we have introduced reforms that give workers a voice in the boardroom, whether through a dedicated elected director, through a non-executive director who is appointed with particular responsibility to provide an outlet for the workforce, or through the establishment of a council that can take workforce opinions. The further expansion of consultation included in the plan is another reinforcement of the fact that the more workers are involved in the affairs of their employers, the better it is for productivity.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
In answer to an earlier question, the Secretary of State stressed the importance of access to justice, so will he guarantee today that he will not reintroduce employment tribunal fees?
Greg Clark
I think the hon. Lady knows that that is a matter for the Ministry of Justice and the Courts and Tribunals Service, and that I cannot make that commitment from the Dispatch Box. What she can see through the reforms in the plan is that the opportunity to obtain justice and see that enforced, whether through the tribunal system or through employers directly, is substantially advantaged by the plan. I hope she would welcome that.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) just reminded the Secretary of State, when his party came into power with the Liberal Democrats in 2010, they doubled the length of time that someone had to be in employment to be able to claim unfair dismissal protection. In the light of today’s statement, is the Secretary of State looking again at whether that is fair and whether the time should be reduced to the one year that it was under the Labour Government?
Greg Clark
Obviously, we keep the standards that we have under constant review. The appointing of a group, under Matthew Taylor’s chairmanship, to consider all aspects of our labour markets and regulation was an open and transparent way to proceed. We are acting on almost every one of his recommendations. They are substantial reforms. I stand by them and I am proud of them.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is important to have employment rights, but I would argue that an individual’s ability actually to enact those rights is equally important. The Secretary of State said in his statement that he would
“give all workers a right to request a more predictable contract, and address the obstacles employees can face in building up continuous service.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) just mentioned the increase to two years in the length of time required to get full employment rights. How would someone get their rights enacted if they did not have the two years of service? It is clear that in the real world people will just be sacked if they ask for their rights and have less than two years of employment.
Greg Clark
Part of the point of making it a statutory requirement that employers should entertain a request for a more permanent contract is to prevent precisely that kind of abuse. That would be unlawful under the proposals.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is hugely disappointing that the Secretary of State has chosen to maintain state-sponsored age discrimination against workers under the age of 25, who are not entitled even to his pretendy living wage. Is he aware that the age pay gap between a 16 or 17-year-old and a 25-year-old, starting on the same day in the same job, has increased over the past three Budgets? Has he read the report by the Young Women’s Trust, “Paid Less Worth Less?”?
Greg Clark
The Low Pay Commission has been established to advise, on the basis of rigorous research, what the rates of pay should be for different groups. I am surprised that the hon. Lady does not have the respect for the commission that I have. As we expand the opportunities for young people, especially through apprenticeships, it is important that posts are available for them. It is the commission’s task to advise on what is the best balance between pay and opportunities.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that he has gone further than many expected, but he has not gone far enough for the Government’s own Low Pay Commission, which has written to him with a series of recommendations, including that people have the right to regular contracts if they are working regular hours; minimum notice periods for shifts; and compensation for shift cancellations. Why will the Government not commit to those recommendations, instead of their watered-down right to request?
Greg Clark
It is not watered-down. The hon. Lady should see that the changes we are making, including on the ability to request a change from a flexible contract to one that has a fixed number of hours or days, are important reforms. They build on the rights to request, for example, different parental leave, which have proved successful in the past. The hon. Lady should not dismiss reforms that have proved valuable in other contexts.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I welcome this report as a starter. I am a proud Member of this Parliament who pays their intern staff a real living wage—£10 an hour—in a modern MP’s office. The Sutton Trust has found that 70% of all internships taken annually in the UK are unpaid. When will this Government take action to end the scandal and exploitation of unpaid internships? May I also ask that we pay modern wages in this Parliament and in this House for all staff who work here so that we practise what we preach?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that we are increasing the resources available for the enforcement of the national living wage, and that applies to people who are employed. They may have the description of interns, but if they are performing paid work, they are entitled to the national living wage.
UK-EU Negotiations
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
In a moment, I shall call the parliamentary leader of the Scottish National party to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), as I feel sure he will be aware, has up to three minutes in which to make such an application.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I am most grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing time to hear this emergency application.
Given the historic nature of UK politics at this moment, I am grateful that you have given this opportunity for an emergency debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, that this House should consider the outcomes of the Prime Minister’s recent discussions with the European Commission and the European Heads of Government regarding the withdrawal agreement and potential ways forward.
This Government have been found in contempt of Parliament, yet still the Prime Minister has failed to show any due respect to this place. This House voted to secure a meaningful vote on the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal and the Government agreed to bring that forward last week, yet they have pulled it. They are breaking their promises and showing utter contempt for Parliament and for the constituents whom we represent. The Prime Minister is running around like a headless chicken, going to Europe with the begging bowl and grasping at straws to find a way to appease the hard-right Brexiteers on her own Benches. Europe is not budging and the Prime Minister’s deal is dead. The game is over and the Prime Minister must admit so.
We are going into the Christmas period recess this week still not knowing what fate lies ahead as this Government bury their head in the sand. It is simply not good enough. The Government must respect Parliament and bring forward the vote on the Prime Minister’s deal, and do it now. Our constituents expect Parliament to deal with these matters. They do not expect it to leave the issue of our future relationship with the EU without debate into the new year.
We all have a responsibility to show leadership and to show that we can avoid uncertainty and chaos by finding a solution to the current impasse. The Prime Minister continues to answer questions in response to statements, but that format is not in itself good enough to air the wide range of views across the House about the current situation and where we go next. It is important that Members are given the opportunity to express their views on the apparent diplomatic impasse between the Government and the European Union. I hope that a debate will also draw out other issues needing further discussion, including preparations for a no-deal scenario, the role of the devolved Administrations and the role of the House itself in determining the next steps.
I ask for an emergency debate to be held in order for us to hold this shambolic and chaotic Government to account.
Mr Speaker
I have listened carefully to the application from the right hon. Gentleman and I am satisfied that the matter is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. In accordance with Standing Order No. 24(2)(b)(ii), I intend to advise the House at a later hour of this sitting—realistically either at 10 o’clock or, if the business were to lapse earlier, before then—my decision on the time to be allocated for the debate and the time at which the debate should take place. There is good reason for that. For the avoidance of doubt, the particular matter on which the specific and important matter on which the right hon. Gentleman seeks the debate is the outcome of the Prime Minister’s recent discussions with the European Commission and the European Heads of Government regarding the withdrawal agreement and potential ways forward.
As colleagues familiar with these procedures will know, my normal practice, if I grant such a debate, is to specify the time at which it will take place and the intended duration. There is good reason why I am not ready to do so at this time, but I must ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has the leave of the House for his application. The answer is that he does have the leave of the House: no objection has been registered and he has the requisite support. I will advise the House later when the debate will take place and for how long it will last.
Application agreed to.
Digital Economy
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, we will debate motions 1, 2 and 3 together. I say that on the assumption that there is no objection. There appears to be no objection, so we will have a single debate for up to 90 minutes. I shall call the Minister to move motion 1 and to speak to all three instruments. Motions 2 and 3 will be moved formally at the end of the debate.
The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)
I beg to move,
That the draft Online Pornography (Commercial Basis) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 10 October, be approved.
Mr Speaker
With this we shall consider the following motions:
That the draft British Board of Film Classification Guidance on Ancillary Service Providers 2018, which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved.
That the draft British Board of Film Classification Guidance on Age-verification Arrangements 2018, which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved.
Margot James
The Digital Economy Act 2017 introduced the requirement for commercial providers of online pornography to have robust age-verification controls in place to prevent children and young people under 18 from accessing pornographic material that is made available on a commercial basis.
Section 14(2) of the Act states:
“The Secretary of State may make regulations specifying…circumstances in which material is or is not to be regarded as made available on a commercial basis.”
So, in a sense, this is a small part of the legislative jigsaw needed to implement age verification. It is the last piece. I therefore ask that the draft Online Pornography (Commercial Basis) Regulations 2018, and the two pieces of guidance published by the British Board of Film Classification on age-verification arrangements and on ancillary services providers be approved.
I should bring to the attention of the House the concerns of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which I thank for their work. I will address their concerns in a moment but, before coming to the specific points related to this debate, I remind the House why we are introducing this requirement.
In the offline world, there are strict rules to deter children from accessing adult content. A large amount of pornography is available on the internet in the UK, often for free, with little or no protections to ensure that those accessing the content are old enough to do so.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
This legislation is long overdue and I really welcome it. I ask the House to indulge me for a second. A parent came to my surgery soon after I was elected to discuss how their child had suffered a sexual assault in a school. During the conversation, the mother mentioned to me, at some length, the ready availability of online pornography at school, how this was a motivating factor—or at least a contributory factor—to the assault and the fact that it just damages our relationships with one another, particularly in young minds.
Margot James
I thank my hon. Friend for that heartfelt intervention. I am very sorry indeed to hear about that case. There is great validity to the concerns the mother expressed to him.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
In the Women and Equalities Committee, as a response to the awfulness of the #MeToo campaign, we took evidence that showed that the consumption of pornography is associated with higher levels of violence, including rape and sexual harassment. I therefore thank my hon. Friend for introducing age verification and for making sure that it works.
Public places are not age specific, and the Committee also suggested that viewing online pornography in public places, such as on buses and trains, should be restricted. Do the Government intend to go further by introducing a restriction on viewing online pornography in public places?
Margot James
I must congratulate the Women and Equalities Committee on its extremely valuable work in this area. It exposed some very concerning issues and backed up its recommendations with evidence. Although the regulations do not touch on the viewing of pornography in public places, we have heard the recommendation of the Committee and what my hon. Friend has just said about that problem. That might be an indirect way of making such material accessible to the very children and young people whom the regulations are designed to help.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
I understand that, in 2015, Ofcom said that that was the pivotal time when we switched from people viewing the internet on desktop computers to more people viewing it on handheld devices such as smartphones. The potential for people to view such things inadvertently in public, which has been identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), has therefore increased dramatically, as has the potential for children to be exposed to it.
Margot James
I follow my hon. Friend’s logic. That was the conclusion that Ofcom reached. It is definitely worth considering the recommendation that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) have made on reviewing the law on viewing pornography in a public place.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that there is consensus across the House about protecting young people under the age of 18 from illegal or inappropriate material. What steps are being taken to ensure that, in any of the regulations or any of the wider efforts the Government are taking, we do not accidentally prevent young people from accessing age-appropriate material about sex and relationships education? I am aware of material for young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people on YouTube and other platforms that has been erroneously caught up in age filters and other restrictions. That prevents young people from finding out in a healthy and age-appropriate way about their sexuality and the key things they need to understand as they are growing up.
Margot James
The hon. Gentleman makes some very good points. I am aware of some of the cases to which he refers. When I explain the detail of the regulations, it should reassure him that we are seeking to catch the commercial provision of pornography on sites where at least two thirds of the content is of an adult nature. I think that should allay his concerns. However, we should keep the issue he raises closely under review.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I very much welcome today’s debate and the Government’s proposals, but parents who are listening to this debate may go away with the impression that everything on the internet will be subject to an age barrier. Will the Minister be clearer, for the benefit of parents who are listening, that the regulations will not include social media? What is she doing to ensure that social media platforms do not inadvertently become the way that young people under the age of 15 access pornography in the future?
Margot James
I welcome the intervention from the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. Let me clarify here and now that the regulations are a very important step forward in preventing children from viewing pornography online. In particular, we are closing the loophole whereby children can stumble across such material inadvertently. However, my right hon. Friend is right that the regulations do not extend to social media platforms that contain pornographic content that is a relatively small minority of the content that they provide. This is not a foolproof guarantee that young people and children will not be exposed to pornography online. It is a significant step forward, but there is, as my right hon. Friend points out, the potential for people to access material on social media platforms, which do not fall within the scope of the regulations unless more than a third of their average content is pornographic.
Margot James
I am sorry that I am taking a long time to answer my right hon. Friend’s point, but it is an important one. I will finish with the last intervention before I take more interventions.
The Government are keeping a weather eye on the availability of pornography on social media platforms. I shall talk more about that, but I reassure my right hon. Friend that we will introduce further measures. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who is in the Chamber, has a duty to report back on the impact of the regulations 12 to 18 months after their commencement and he will look at just the issues my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) has raised. I will make a little progress before taking further interventions.
There is no doubt, going back to the work of the Women and Equalities Committee, that the large amount of pornography available on the internet in the UK, often for free and with no protections to ensure that those accessing it are old enough to do so, is leading to a change in the way that young people understand healthy relationships, sex and consent. I know that that is a major issue of concern to everybody across the House. A 2016 report commissioned by the Children’s Commissioner and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children made that absolutely clear. More than half of the children sampled had been exposed to online pornography by the age of 15, nearly half of the boys thought that the pornography they had seen was realistic, and just under half wished to emulate what they had seen.
The introduction of a requirement for age-verification controls is a necessary step in tackling those issues and it contributes towards our commitment to make the UK a safer place to be online, particularly for children and young people.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, when children have such experiences at a very young age, it can affect them for the whole of their life and have a big impact on their relationships as they grow up and get married? Indeed, it can affect not just their relationship with their partner, but their relationships with their children as well.
Margot James
I very much agree that, if children see hardcore pornography when they are too young to understand it, it can have long-lasting and very negative impacts on their development and future relationships. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The draft Online Pornography (Commercial Basis) Regulations set out the basis on which pornographic material is to be regarded as
“made available on a commercial basis”.
The regulations cover material on websites and applications that charge for access. They also cover circumstances where a person makes available pornographic material on the internet for free, but then receives payment or reward for doing so, for example, through advertising revenue.
It was clear from the debates in this House during the passage of the Digital Economy Act that it was not Parliament’s intention that social media sites on which pornography is only a small part of the overall content should be required to have age verification.
Neil O’Brien
As a member of the Science and Technology Committee, I have been involved in our ongoing report on smartphones, social media and young people’s mental health. Absolutely central to that report is the whole issue of age verification for access not just to pornography but to gambling, violent material and things like that. Does the Minister share my strong view that many large social media companies—some of the world’s largest companies, with almost unbelievably sophisticated granular data on their users—have to be raising their game? In the run-up to the online harms White Paper, which goes beyond what we are talking about today, companies in the industry absolutely need to raise their game, because they are allowing their own terms of use to be violated, and they know that is happening but are doing nothing about it.
Margot James
My hon. Friend raises some important points. We do have rising expectations of social media platforms; we expect at the very least that they enforce their own terms and conditions. Some enforce to a greater extent than others, especially in terms of this particular issue. Facebook takes down posts that include nudity, which is its way of enforcing its own terms and conditions, but what about the private groups that operate on that platform? There is much more to be done. We expect social media platforms to uphold their terms and conditions across their platforms, not just in the public-facing parts of it.
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech dealing with this critical issue that any of us who are responsible for young people will feel very strongly about. Does she agree that there is a rapid evolution in the technology sector? She talked specifically about pornographic sites that charge for access. Will she say a bit more about how she would deal with those sites that offer slightly different business models—for example, the premium model, where it is free to go on to the site and it then captures people’s details and makes them pay a subscription fee later? I am sure that she has considered that as part of her response, so I would be grateful if she could update us on it.
Margot James
These regulations will apply even to pornographic sites that make their initial offer free of charge. The rule is that, if a site offering a service where more than 30% of its content is pornographic does so on a commercial basis—which can be free of charge if it is backed up by advertising revenues—it comes within the scope of these regulations, whether or not it provides those services free of charge. These draft regulations will capture such sites as are of concern to my hon. Friend.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I chaired the UK Council for Child Internet Safety for two and half years. While I applaud the regulations that the Minister is bringing forward, this is scratching the surface. The problem is that these days very few young people pay to access hardcore pornography on the internet. Unless we have some form of verifiable, age-based permission such as the use of a credit card—even if that is not charged for—we are not going to prevent this from happening. Actually, the much bigger problem is on social media, with sexting and everything else that goes on. Social media companies, including ones that we have had in front of the Home Affairs Committee, are turning a blind eye to the hosting of exceedingly dangerous material that young people are accessing and normalising, and then they are transferring that to their relationships during impressionable years. We really have got to do so much better than this.
Margot James
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he has done while chairing that important body, the UK Council for Child Internet Safety. I have already made clear in my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, the Chair of the Select Committee, that we do recognise that these regulations are a first step. Although we have high expectations of what they can achieve, we are fully aware that they do not go as far as to be able to satisfy the vast majority of our concerns where social media platforms are concerned, where the majority of content is not pornographic.
I would like to reassure the House, however, that I do believe that these regulations will be more effective than my hon. Friend fears, because they will cover sites that make pornography available free of charge. As he rightly points out, the majority of young people access pornography without paying for the service. However, if they access it from a site that is predominantly pornographic and is offering a pornographic service on a commercial basis, then, whether it is free of charge or paid for, the regulations will capture both. I would like to reassure him that these regulations will bring into scope the sites about which he is concerned that currently provide these services free of charge.
My hon. Friend will also be reassured to know, when I go on to explain a little more about the actual process of age verification, that it is not simply a matter of being able to offer a credit card. The rigour of age verification provision will be stricter than that. That will also help to counter the growing trend of young people accessing pornography before they attain the age of 18.
Stephen Doughty
Further to the comments by my colleague on the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), we have raised a series of concerns with social media companies and other technology companies about access to inappropriate, violent or extreme content, as well as the content that we are discussing today. Will the Minister and the Government look much more closely at peer-to-peer sharing sites like Snapchat and closed messaging groups on Instagram, Kik and other messaging sites? It is my understanding, from speaking to a lot of young people in my constituency, that that is where a lot of this content is. No age verification goes on, and it is simply done in encrypted sharing. Some of it is self-generated content where people are doing revenge porn, sexting and sharing types of images that not only constitute committing an offence because they are creating child pornography, but are well outside the scope of what one would find on a commercial site. Will she reassure us that serious work will be undertaken to look at that area?
Margot James
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that serious work is being undertaken as we speak, as we prepare the online harms White Paper. We are looking at encryption within the context of that White Paper. He will appreciate the difficulties of privacy versus the public need to reduce the exposure of young people to pornographic material. We are looking at this very seriously. We will be bringing forward the White Paper in the new year and will welcome his input on that.
We have set a threshold of 30% to ensure proportionality where material is made available free of charge. Thus there is an exemption for people making available pornographic content on a website where it makes up under one third of that content. This will ensure that websites that do not derive a significant proportion of their overall commercial benefit from pornography are not regarded in these regulations as commercial pornographic websites. Nevertheless, should a website or app be marketed as making available pornographic material, a person making such material available on that site will be considered to be making it available on a commercial basis even if it constitutes less than one third of the total. This is a proportionate way to introduce the new policy.
I am confident that these measures represent the most effective way to commence this important new policy, but our Department will of course keep it under review. Indeed, as I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be reporting on the regulatory framework within 12 to 18 months of commencement of the regulations. In addition, as I just mentioned in response to the hon. Gentleman, the forthcoming online harms White Paper will provide us with another opportunity to review the wider context of this policy.
In conjunction, we have laid two pieces of British Board of Film Classification guidance—first, on age verification arrangements and, secondly, on ancillary service providers. The first piece of guidance sets out the criteria by which the BBFC will assess whether a person has met the requirements of section 14 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 to ensure that pornographic material is not normally accessible to those under 18. The criteria mandate four things: an effective control mechanism at the point of access to verify that a user is aged 18 or over; strict requirements on age verification data; a requirement to ensure that revisits to a site do not permit the bypassing of age verification controls; and the prevention of non-human operators—for example, bots—from exercising the age-verification regime.
Rachel Maclean
Does the Minister believe that the BBFC has sufficient resources and skills to do what the regulations require of it?
Margot James
I would like to reassure my hon. Friend that I certainly think it has the experience, expertise and resources to undertake this role. It has more than a century of experience in the control of film content. It has additional resources and moneys with which it can hold to account age-verification providers and, most importantly, the websites that are providing the pornographic content.
In addition to the criteria that the BBFC will use to verify the effective control of age-verification arrangements, it has provided typical examples of features that it would regard as non-compliant in the arena of age verification.
The second piece of guidance provides a non-exhaustive list of ancillary service providers that the BBFC will consider. That list is not exhaustive, to ensure that the policy remains flexible to future developments. The BBFC has published draft versions of both pieces of guidance and has run a public consultation for four weeks on their content. The draft guidance laid before the House takes account of comments received from affected companies, age-verification providers and other interested parties.
I have been clear that age verification is not a silver bullet, and we know that what we are doing is difficult. Indeed, we are the first country in the world to introduce such a measure. I am aware of the concerns expressed by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments about the drafting of the Online Pornography (Commercial Basis) Regulations 2018. I have considered its concerns carefully, and we are grateful for its work, but we do not believe that the variation in the legislation between the terms “met” and “applied” will be difficult for a court to interpret.
The Committee expressed concerns about the content threshold because it anticipates difficulty with the application and interpretation of the regulation. As I have said, the regulation will not apply in a case where it is reasonable for the age-verification regulator to assume that pornographic material makes up less than one third of the content of such a site. As stated in the BBFC guidance, the BBFC will seek to engage and work with a person or company who may be in contravention of the requirement in advance of commencing enforcement action.
I am aware that the Committee has also drawn the special attention of both Houses to these draft pieces of guidance because, in its view, they fail to contain the guidance required by section 25(1) of the 2017 Act and contain material that should not have been included. Section 3, paragraph 5, of the age-verification guidance sets out the criteria that the regulator will treat as complying with age verification. The guidance goes on in paragraph 6 to give examples of features that, in isolation, do not comply with the age-verification requirements. That approach ensures fairness and is product-neutral. Rather than recommending a particular solution, the guidance sets out principles that will encourage further innovation.
Neil O’Brien
I wonder whether I could press the Minister on the robustness of age verification, which is of interest to the wider debate. It seems that certain types of checks, such as those that run off a credit card, are extremely robust, but younger people do not have access to credit cards, so that becomes more difficult, although we can layer up different types of information to give a best guess. Of the long list of checks that she has mentioned, which is favourable in terms of robustness and quality?
Margot James
Age-verification providers will have to demonstrate that they have a foolproof system of identifying whether somebody is aged 18 or over. The sort of effective control mechanisms they are considering are credit cards, passports and driving licences—items that a lot of 18-year-olds will have at least one of. My hon. Friend rightly points out that a great deal of work is going on to improve age-verification systems. That is precisely because the sorts of items I have mentioned are, in general, only held by people who are aged 18 or over—with the exception of driving licences, which can be obtained at the age of 17.
For those reasons, it is much more difficult to ascertain how we can require age verification in other areas. For example, in the Data Protection Bill, we set the qualifying age at which someone can consent to a contract with a social media platform as 13, but it is very difficult for someone to prove that they are 13, because those items are normally held by people aged 18 or over.
Eddie Hughes
Should I be concerned by reports that a company called AgeID, which operates the ID verification system for Pornhub and YouPorn, is considering the idea of “porn passes”, which could be bought from a newsagent and would allow people to access porn online anonymously, so that they do not have the embarrassment of their credit cards being recorded against such a site?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The Minister is being very generous in taking a great many interventions, and I appreciate that she is giving thorough answers to the questions she is being asked, but we only have 58 minutes left, and many Members want to take part in the debate. She might want to bear that in mind.
Margot James
Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, which I will take on board, but I will just deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend. The measures that will be acceptable to the BBFC will be of greater rigour than the examples he gave. I hope that I will be able to satisfy his concerns, but I may write to him, rather than dwell at length on the important issue he raises.
I now turn to the guidance on ancillary service providers. Paragraph 3 of section 3 provides a non-exhaustive list of classes of providers that the age-verification regulator may consider as within scope. However, to ensure that this policy remains flexible for the benefit of future developments, it is necessary that this is a non-exhaustive list. Where new classes of ancillary services appear in the future, the BBFC’s guidance explains the process by which these services will be informed.
The guidance includes additional material, as this is a new policy and the regulator considered that it was important for its stakeholders that the guidance set out the wider context in which the age-verification regulator will carry out regulation. This includes valuable guidance on matters such as the BBFC’s approach, powers and material on data protection.
We are aware of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s special interest report. The Committee raised similar concerns to the JCSI—for example, on the content threshold—and the responses to the SLSC’s concerns on these points are the same as the responses we have given to the JCSI reports. However, the SLSC also suggested that the House may want to ask what action the Government will take to tackle pornographic material available on a non-commercial basis. We have already debated these issues during my remarks.
I appreciate that pornography is of course made available by means not covered by the regulations. We have already covered those issues, but they were also the subject of extensive discussion during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill. In particular, concern has been expressed about social media platforms. As I have said in response to hon. Members’ interventions, we expect those platforms to enforce their own terms and conditions and to protect children from harmful content. Indeed, the Government have been clear that online platforms must do more to protect users from such harmful content.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
How do the Government intend to ensure that these regulations can keep up with technological advancements and developments within these markets so that the legislation and regulations this place passes are not obsolete by the time they come into force?
Margot James
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The principal way in which we are future-proofing these regulations is by making the specificities that the BBFC operates by and the guidance sufficiently flexible and not too prescriptive. As technology advances, it will be able to adapt such regulations and guidance without the need for this House continually to bring in further legislation.
Before I conclude, I would add in response to my hon. Friend that, as I have said, this is not a silver bullet and it is only one of the measures we are taking. We are working on the online harms Bill to tackle issues and concerns in the area of the provision of pornography that are not captured by these regulations. I trust that my hon. Friend is reassured.
As I have said, I recognise that the age-verification regulations are not a panacea, but I am proud that we are leading the way internationally in the action we are taking to give far more protection to children and young people than is currently available.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the Opposition spokesman, let me say it will be obvious that many people wish to speak. This debate runs until 8.36 pm and I see people with large wads of notes. It might be helpful for colleagues to know now that they should edit down their notes to some three or four minutes.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You can see by the number of people who want to speak and the amount of notes we have that this is something we are really keen for the Government to get right. May I therefore ask whether there is any opportunity to extend the debate, at least towards its allocated time?
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is a perfectly reasonable point of order, but not now. There was a point when Mr Speaker asked whether the House agreed to take the three matters we are discussing this evening together or separately. At that point, anyone could have objected and each would have been taken separately; thus there would have been a much longer debate, but I am afraid that that moment has passed. However, it is very good, just for once, to have a point of order that is a real point of order, and I thank the hon. Lady for it.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I will be as brief as I can, because I know that the whole House will want to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), given the level of expertise she brings to this debate.
The Minister will be pleased that I am able to start on a note of cross-party consensus; we do not have many of those at the moment. I think we can agree across this House that this is an important debate because it gives us the opportunity to say, when it comes to legislation in this territory, that we have rights to honour. We have rights to honour because we have duties to honour—duties to our children. As Baroness Kidron in another place has put it so well, “Children are children until they reach the age of maturity, not until they pick up a smartphone”.
If those duties bite on us, as legislators and indeed as parents, those duties should also bite on companies and indeed on social media companies. These measures go a little distance towards imposing some of those duties on commercial providers. They do not go far enough, and I will explain why there are shortcomings. However, they come so late and are needed so urgently that we will not oppose them or divide the House this evening.
These measures are a stopgap. I hope the Minister will at some point during these proceedings explain just how long this stopgap is expected to last. At the moment, we have the situation, as the Information Commissioner has put it, that the internet has become something of a “wild west”. As the Minister has been candid enough to admit in her really quite helpful explanatory remarks this evening, these regulations may touch on the problem, but they absolutely do not solve it. We need a very different regulatory approach to the online harms we are seeking to police.
In debating the shortcomings of these regulations, I hope we are able to help the Minister and the Secretary of State, who is good enough to be on the Front Bench tonight, to get two crucial reforms right. We asked for these reforms in the Data Protection Bill. They are the age-appropriate design code, which was promised under the Data Protection Bill, and the internet safety strategy, which I know the Secretary of State is hoping to bring forward as soon as he can get his civil servants back from no-deal planning and get them back on to the Department’s important business.
I hope the Minister is able to set out for us how long she expects this stopgap to last, and I want to flag up to her the 10 obvious deficiencies that leap out from the measures and the explanatory notes to them. I will rattle through them fairly quickly, in the interests of time.
The first problem is the very strange conclusion in the regulations of a de minimis of content at which the regulator will deem it necessary to trigger a safety wall of age-verification software. It is really not clear why a third was chosen. I appreciate that the Minister has to start from somewhere, but there are obvious flaws in this plan, not least providers simply filling their sites with virtuous content in order to get around the regulations. It strikes me we can fully anticipate that even at this stage of the legislation.
As has been highlighted by a number of hon. Members, some of whom are not now in their place, these regulations do not bite on social media firms. This is lunacy. This is surely one of the most dangerous areas in which our children are exposed to these kinds of online harms, so bringing forward a set of measures without explicit reference to their non-applicability to social media firms seems to me to be a shortcoming. As the House will know, the reason why this is such a problem is that when we took the Data Protection Bill through this place, we exercised a derogation under European law that allowed us to deem that children were basically unfettered on social media platforms from the age of 14, not 16 as other European countries insist. Debating the right protections for our children on social media platforms is extremely important, and hon. Members are absolutely right to clock that the orders do not touch on that important arena.
The second problem is the odd definition of “commercial basis” that is used as the trigger for requiring age-verification systems. We have had a useful exchange about business models that entice users by offering free content—the money is made either by advertising or through premium content. The orders and the explanatory notes are not terribly clear about the sins that will be allowed through the net because of that odd definition.
The third problem, which was debated in the other place, is the challenge of what definition of “obscene material” to use. At least a couple of definitions are knocking around different bits of legislation and it is not clear that the orders are all-encompassing in the definitions used.
That brings us to the fourth issue, which was championed by Baroness Howe in the other place. The definitions that have been used create a couple of important new gaps. I am grateful for the briefing circulated by Christian Action Research and Education, which has set out the challenge in important ways. The Government have changed what the BBFC can ask internet service providers to block from so-called “prohibited material” to the much narrower definition of “extreme pornography”. In so doing, they exclude the power to ask ISPs to block non-photographic, animated child abuse images. Those are illegal to possess under section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 but, at the moment, they are outwith the protections of the orders. If those images are located outside the UK, they are not within the remit of the Internet Watch Foundation. Given the number of such images that we know are available, that is a serious shortcoming in the orders. It is a great concern to the House that neither the Internet Watch Foundation nor the BBFC has the power to deal with those images.
That brings us to the fifth issue. Just as significant is another challenge. Because of the same use of definitions, it is not possible to prohibit violent pornography that is illegal under the Video Recordings Act 1984. I understand that Baroness Howe has a Bill in the other place to step on and do away with these problems, and perhaps at some point we might learn whether the Minister is minded to support that legislation. I am not sure whether the Minister gets a chance to wind up under the rules of tonight’s debate, but she might want to intervene if a box note is forthcoming.
The sixth problem is that the orders give power to what is essentially a private company. When the orders were passed to give the BBFC the role we are debating this evening, the Opposition raised significant concerns about whether, despite its extensive experience, the measures constitute mission creep for the BBFC. The Opposition and other hon. Members have serious doubts about whether it is resourced enough to do the job. This is a new departure in its business, and it does not have a track record. It does not have a royal charter, and it cannot de facto be assumed to be operating in the common good. The basic challenge hon. Members have is this: who will watch the watchmen? How will we ensure that that private organisation, which is blessed by us with statutory powers and statutory regulatory oversight, executes the task we give it effectively? We cannot rely on its mission. I welcome the fact that the Minister says that the Secretary of State will come back to the House in 12 to 18 months with a progress report, but that is rather a long time in the future if the BBFC is found to be seriously failing in the execution of its duties at a much earlier stage.
The seventh problem is that there is not an exhaustive list of age-verification solutions. The Minister will say that the technology moves on and that we need to preserve a degree of flexibility to allow the legislation to keep up to date but, none the less, the lack of specificity worries me. It worries me that the BBFC is not yet able to insist on minimal regulations and solutions for age-verification systems. The eighth problem is that the guidance on what is appropriate in systems is vague.
When we take those eight objections together, we see that the orders are half-measures. The reality is that, this year, we have learned about and debated a great many different approaches to clamping down on the harms that may hurt our children online. A much better approach to the problem would be to use a tried and tested concept in health and safety legislation: the duty of care principle, which has been around in English law since at least the early 1970s. That approach would require companies and organisations to take specific steps to understand the potential harms they are causing to their consumers, and then to take appropriate steps to ameliorate those harms.
If I went to London tonight and built myself an arena and filled it with people, I would rightly be asked to observe all kinds of health and safety measures to ensure that that the people were safe and sound. If I build an online arena, I am under no such obligations and can pretty much do what I want. If I ensure that the arena is a social media platform, I will not be hampered in any way by the orders.
The duty of care principle is a much better approach, but it needs a different kind of regulator. We currently have something like 13 different regulators overseeing different aspects of internet safety, internet regulation, content regulation and financial processing regulation online. That is far too many. That landscape is much too complicated, and those regulators do not have sufficient powers to implement the safeguards against online harm that we as legislators would like. I am not proposing that we reduce those 13 regulators to one this evening, but I am saying that 13 needs to come down to something closer to one. The House needs to ensure that that regulator has the right power to enforce proper duty of care regulation.
The Minister spoke at great length and I am grateful that she took a wide variety of interventions. The orders are important and necessary, and an advance on where we are today, but if we are to get the future right, hon. Members on both sides of the House need to be candid and honest, and work together in identifying the shortcomings of the current approach, which was conceived and constructed in legislation that is a couple of years old. We need to be honest and open about its shortcomings so that we can put in place a better solution when we have the White Paper and, I hope, when the Secretary of State brings the Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. As I indicated earlier, we will start with a time limit of four minutes.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I will curtail my comments to the utmost brevity.
I strongly welcome the regulations, but I have a number of reservations and questions for Ministers. I share the concerns that have been expressed that social media needs to be included in the remit. That is not the case currently despite the fact that 500,000 pornographic images are posted daily on such platforms. I hope the Minister reassures the House that she will consider that position on social media through the internet safety White Paper.
Secondly, I share the concerns of the JCSI about the Government’s approach to proportionality and the “one third” approach, which might lead to websites deliberately including additional material with the prime intention of falling outside the scope of the regulations. Will Ministers monitor that carefully and consider reviewing the “one third” principle if the concerns expressed by the Joint Committee materialise?
I want to express concerns about the impact of amendments made in another place to part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, some of which were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). When the Bill left the Commons, it gave the regulator power to block non-photographic child sex abuse images. As we have heard, those images can include incredibly lifelike, animated computer-generated images. Disturbingly, the other place voted to accommodate adult access to such material so long as it is placed behind age-verification checks, but the message that sends is alarming.
As we heard, some suggest that this material could be dealt with by the Internet Watch Foundation, but it can only take action against such material if shown by websites based in the UK. As I have said before in this place, the majority of such material viewed in the UK comes from sites based in other jurisdictions. In 2017, 3,471 reports of alleged non-photographic images of child sexual abuse were made to the IWF, but none was hosted in the UK and it was unable to act. The Digital Economy Bill, as it left this House, empowered the regulator to take the only credible enforcement action that can be taken against such sites when they are based in other jurisdictions: the regulator had the power to block them. That power has now been taken away, unless a site has no age-verification checks. I hope Ministers will look at that again.
I turn now, with no degree of relish, to the other area of concern, violent pornography, which was reconsidered by the other place. When the Bill left this place, it gave the regulator the power to block violent pornography that is illegal to supply to anyone of any age under the Video Recordings Act 1984. However, amendments introduced in the other place accommodate all but a tiny subset of violent pornography, so long as it is behind age-verification checks. The only illegal content that the regulator can take action against when behind age-verification checks is “extreme pornography” which has to be likely to result in severe injury to certain named body parts. That sends out completely the wrong message about the acceptability of sexual violence against women—it is unacceptable, full stop. I welcome the Women and Equalities Committee’s recent report on sexual harassment, which highlighted that point.
In conclusion, I support the suggestion that the Government have a quick way to address the two failings to which I have just referred: looking at Baroness Howe’s Digital Economy Act 2017 (Amendment) (Definition of Extreme Pornography) Bill and giving it time for consideration in this place.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I believe that all of us in the Chamber tonight want to find common ground and a common way forward. I thank the Minister for her very thorough exposition of the issues in her speech and the Opposition Front Bench spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), for covering a lot of the issues in such detail that I will not need to go over them again. I will keep my remarks very short, so that other Members have the opportunity to participate in the debate.
Currently, it is too easy for our children to access explicit material online. Young people today are growing up in an age where information is readily available to them at the touch of a button. That can be a very good thing, of course, as a terrific aid to learning. However, it also means that children can be exposed to explicit materials either in error or because they are simply curious. We have a duty to ensure that all that can be done should be done to protect them.
Studies have shown that when children and young people are exposed to sexually explicit material, they are at a greater risk of developing unrealistic attitudes about sex and consent; more negative attitudes towards roles, identities and relationships; more casual attitudes towards sex and sexual relationships; and an increase in risky sexual behaviour. They also develop unrealistic expectations of body image and performance. Access to genuine educational material is important, but we must ensure that we take these measures to protect children and young people.
The Scottish National party supports measures that will protect children from exposure to pornographic material online. It is only right that there is a requirement that a person making available pornographic material online on a commercial basis to persons in the United Kingdom should ensure that such material is not normally accessible by persons under the age of 18. As I said in my opening remarks, it is currently too easy for children to access explicit adult content on their phones and computers. There is much work to do, especially in the area of social media, and many challenges listed tonight that are still to be addressed, but we support the measures, which as a start, aim to protect our children in a digital age.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I very much welcome this groundbreaking piece of legislation and thank the Minister for going through it so thoroughly today in her opening statement. I think the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) is wrong when he says that this is a set of half-measures, but it is only a start—he is right in that respect. When we look at the scale of the problem we are dealing with, with almost two-thirds of young people seeing pornography online for the first time when they were not expecting it, the Government are right to start the long journey in trying to stop the unexpected exposure to what can be very damaging material.
The Women and Equalities Committee published a number of reports highlighting the damaging impact that exposure to pornography at an early age can have on young children—not only in the report, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), on sexual harassment in public places, but in the report on sexual harassment in school. The evidence is there and it is clear, but rather than going through those findings again I would like to focus particularly on the amendments made in the other place to the Digital Economy Act 2017 (Amendment) (Definition of Extreme Pornography) Bill. They have caused concern not only this evening but outside this place by setting extreme pornography as the threshold for non-compliance and for the images that appear to be allowed as a result of those changes made in the other place.
There are serious concerns about part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, which has been weakened by Lords amendments. The noble Baroness Howe has been working hard in the other place to try to offer a solution. I hope the Minister can comment on that if time allows this evening. The Lords amendments mean that non-photographic child sexual abuse images, which would be illegal for anybody to possess, could be accommodated behind age-verification checks. Whereas previously the regulator could block that illegal content, the Lords amendments mean that that could happen only if the material was without age verification.
Secondly, the Lords amendments mean that a lot of violent pornography that is illegal to supply to anyone of any age under the Video Recordings Act 1984 will now be accommodated behind age verifications. That sends out all the wrong messages, so will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will be not only keeping these issues under close review, but examining whether they could take forward the recommendations in Baroness Howe’s Bill, and that these issues can be addressed directly in the online harms White Paper, if not before?
We have the opportunity to return to these issues after 18 months, but I would not want to see what is a good start being hampered by changes in the other place that ComRes polling would suggest almost three-quarters of Members in this place simply would not agree to. Why can we not bring forward measures that would better reflect the will of this House, rather than that of unelected peers? The Front Bench spokespeople often tell me that something that is illegal offline is illegal online as well. They are really close to the edge of breaking their own rule, where things that are actually illegal offline appear to the normal man on the Clapham omnibus to have a different effect online. That is really regrettable.
The Minister was very generous in responding to my earlier comments on social media. I hope she keeps under review the need to put much pressure on social media companies to ensure that they also are within these sorts of parameters.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I will rattle through some points, because I would like them to be on the record for the Minister and the Secretary of State.
On the guidance on the ancillary service providers, under section 15(1)(d) of the Digital Economy Act 2017 and annex one of the guidance, pornography material is defined as a video work or material that has been issued an 18 certificate and that
“it is reasonable to assume from its nature was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal”.
This is a neutral definition that fails to recognise that porn is almost always coercive, usually violent, aggressive and degrading, and is gendered. It is also almost always men doing it to women. Other countries are broad in their definition of pornography, to capture that aspect of it. In Spain, it is defined as “pornography, gender violence, mistreatment”, and in Poland as very strong and explicit violence, racist comments, bad language and erotic scenes. Does the Minister agree that our definition could be amended to acknowledge that pornography represents gendered violence, misogyny and abuse?
Liam Byrne
Am I right that the point my hon. Friend wants to register this evening is that there is much to learn from other countries?
Sarah Champion
That is absolutely right, and that becomes more apparent as we go forward. This legislation is very UK-based; pornography, of course, is international.
Minister, I am very concerned about the ability of the BBFC to compel ancillary service providers and payment-service providers to block access to non-compliant pornography services, as described under sections 21 and 23 of the Digital Economy Act. What power does the BBFC have to force companies to comply with its enforcement measures? What happens if credit card companies, banks or advertising agencies refuse to comply? I know of pornographic sites that accept supermarket points instead of cash to get around such legislation from other countries. What assessment has the Minister made of the likelihood of opportunistic websites being established to circumvent UK legislation and the child protection risks that follow? It is unclear how the BBFC will appraise sites and what review mechanisms it will put in place to judge whether the scheme is effective in practice.
Under part 1, paragraph 10 of the guidance:
“The BBFC will report annually to the Secretary of State”.
Will the Minister commit to an interim review after six months from the implementation date, so that we can see whether this is working? Under part 1, paragraph 11 of the guidance,
“the BBFC will…carry out research… into the effectiveness of the regime”
with a view to child protection “from time to time”. As that is the very purpose of the legislation, does the Minister agree that this should occur at least every two years? Under part 2, paragraph 7 of the guidance,
“the BBFC will…specify a prompt timeframe for compliance”.
However, there is no detail on what this timeframe is. It could be a week—it might be a year. Will the Minister please explain the timetable for enforcement?
The guidance also details the enforcement measures available to the BBFC in the case of a non-compliant provider. I broadly welcome those enforcement measures, but I am concerned about the ability of the BBFC to take action. Will the Minister tell us which body will be effectively enforcing these punishments? Will it be the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport or the Home Office? Will the Minister put on the record the additional resources being committed both to the BBFC and whichever Government agent is meant to enforce the legislation?
Turning to the BBFC guidance on age-verification arrangements, I want to register my concerns about the standards laid out on what constitutes sufficient age verification from providers. Section 3, paragraph 5 mentions
“an effective control mechanism at the point of registration or access by the end user which verifies that the user is aged 18 or over at the point of registration or access”.
That is very vague and could in practice mean any number of methods, many of which are yet to be effectively put to the test and some of which may jeopardise the security of personal data. That raises concerns about the robustness of the whole scheme, so will the Minister detail how she plans to ensure that the qualifying criteria are not so lax as to be useless?
Part 4, paragraph 3a states that
“age-verification systems must be designed with data protection in mind—ensuring users’ privacy is protected by default”.
Has the Minister also made an assessment of the safeguarding implications for the personal data of children, some of whom may attempt to falsify their age to access pornographic imagery? Following the data hack of Ashley Madison, that has concerning implications for adults and children alike. While age verification certainly is not a silver bullet, as an idea it does have a place in a regulatory child protection framework. However, we need to ensure that that framework is as robust as it can be. Guidelines for websites that host pornographic material must be clear, so that the policy can be rigorously applied and potential loopholes are closed.
I also want to say that this has to work across Government. At the moment, we are still waiting for the Department for Education to bring forward the guidance on relationship and sex education. Unless we prevent, we cannot—
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I knew that parliamentarians on both sides of the Chamber agree that we have a duty to provide the framework to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. That is why I welcome the legislative steps to implement the age-verification controls that we are talking about tonight. That is especially the case since I have read some of the evidence, although that also made me question whether we are going far enough—a question on all our lips tonight.
The survey carried out on behalf of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children’s Childline service showed that one in five children aged between 11 and 17 said that they had seen pornographic images that had shocked or upset them. That is why this legislation is so important.
We have talked about technology and how fast-moving it is, and that can work both ways. It could perhaps help us to provide stronger controls if we grasp what may happen in the coming months and make sure that we use the technology to the fullest. However, we must also be aware that technology can advantage the online providers of the pornography that we are trying to prevent our young people from seeing. It is important that we keep up to date with what is happening in the technology world. As others have said, the measures should be the starting point, not the end point. I would really appreciate it if the Minister clarified what further steps were being taken to make sure that we moved forward with this over the coming months and years.
The key focus of what we are discussing is that children should be protected online in the same way as they are offline. We have other prohibitions for goods that are inappropriate for different ages, such as tobacco and alcohol—to me, this is an extension of those principles. It is right that we look at how to protect children and young people from inappropriate online images.
There has been a lot of talk tonight about social media and how the legislation does not cover that. Hopefully, some of the responsible providers of social media are watching and listening and, through the nudge effect, will be able to implement good practices based on the new regulations that we are introducing for online providers. We know that the nudge principle works in other areas, so perhaps we can keep an eye on that as well to make sure that we take every possible advantage from what we are discussing across all the different platforms.
It is also important that we do not forget about parental responsibility, because that is still a big way of stopping children seeing inappropriate images. When I was talking to a colleague earlier, she said that as parents she and her partner thought that they had done the right thing by putting the computer in the hallway so that they were walking past all the time, but such actions do not stop parents going out and leaving children at home as young adults. Whatever parents do, sometimes it is not enough, which is why I welcome these measures.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) mentioned that what we are doing might be misunderstood by parents, who may feel that they do not need to provide any parental guidance. We need to make sure that parents still understand that they have that responsibility and that the legislation and framework being put in are not a panacea, but the start of a long pathway to making sure that we protect our children from pornography and that they develop healthy, strong relationships and are not affected by what they see as children.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I will keep my remarks brief not only because of the time available, but because many of the concerns that the Liberal Democrats share have been covered, particularly by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench.
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I would like to oppose these flawed—as we see it—Government plans for age verification for access to online pornography. Ostensibly, as we have heard tonight, the main aim of the proposals is to stop children stumbling on to online pornography, but there is little supporting evidence that young people do stumble upon these sites. If they do, it is more likely that they are not the dedicated sites that would be covered by the legislation.
That is one flaw, but my main objection is that the Government’s proposals would mean tracking information from people using these sites by suggesting that a credit card or an address is given to check against the electoral register. An act that is private and, in most cases where the information is asked for, legal, would be recorded and could be tracked on the person’s computer. On top of that, there are concerns about the lack of privacy protections, that the information could be open to hacking and that, like any other bulk data, it could be sold on.
The legislation is also easy to circumvent. Indeed, US websites have already said that they will simply ignore it because, to their mind, it interferes with legal independence and the rights of the individual. However, my main concern is that this flawed legislation could lead to the targeting of sexual minorities who are over 18 and can visit the sites. Some members of the LGBT community may wish to keep their identity or their sexuality secret for several reasons, but the legislation would risk the possibility of their being hacked and that information being leaked. In a nutshell, those are the reasons why Liberal Democrat Members oppose the Government’s proposals.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this important debate, and to be part of a debate in which several thoughtful points have been made from hon. Members of all parties.
We should be proud of the legislation that we are introducing. As the Minister said, it is the first time that something like this has been attempted anywhere in the world. Although we could undoubtedly go further, this is a noble first step. I spent the first part of my career as a teacher. I worked for Barnardo’s and for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and I followed this issue closely through those jobs.
I have been struck by the sheer pace of change and Governments’ and regulators’ failure to keep up with it. The speed with which smartphone technology has changed the environment of childhood is frightening. I have always been wary of the aggressive online libertarian wing, which claims that this new world cannot be regulated and that to introduce any form of restriction is to inhibit the beauty of the online liberal space. That is unacceptable. We have a duty, as adults, to step in and protect children from things that they might not choose to see and that we know they are not ready to see.
As a starting point, we must accept that self-declaration is no form of age verification. Creating a mechanism, however basic, which introduces a decent, verifiable scheme to prevent young people from seeing certain things, is worth while. There are many opportunities to extend the principle elsewhere. I know from friends who are teachers and from the parents of teenage children their concerns about social media and overexposure to it. Many of the social media giants tell us that their sites are suitable for those aged 13 and above, but do nothing to police that. As I said, self-declaration is no form of age verification. The adults have to step in and take control.
I was interested in the shadow Minister’s comments about duty of care. As we look to the future, beyond the legislation, when social media giants, internet companies and providers of any content say that only people of a certain age should use their site, yet do nothing meaningful to enforce that, there must ultimately be some form of sanction against them. Switching the onus on to those companies would be no bad thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes)—who has morphed into a different hon. Member since I stood up; a no less honourable Member—mentioned mobile phones. Several colleagues and I have raised the important issue of whether schools should have further powers to police mobile phones in schools.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am pleased to speak in support of the regulations and guidance, although I want to register some concerns. I thank Dan Boucher from Christian Action Research and Education—CARE—who gave us some information about the subject.
It is two years since the Digital Economy Bill left our House, yet the age-verification provisions have still not been implemented. Will the Minister assure us that there will be no further slippage in the timetable? I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister and her Parliamentary Private Secretary, who usually sits behind her, but not tonight—it is a different person—for their courtesy and good manners in helping us to look at the issues, and giving us an assurance, which I am holding on to, that the White Paper will make the necessary changes.
As things stand, neither part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 nor the regulations engage with social media. That point was made in another place last month with real concern. It was pointed out that a staggering 500,000 pornographic images are posted on Twitter every day. I gently remind the Minister that the recent Women and Equalities Committee report on sexual harassment recommended:
“The definition of ‘commercial pornography services’ for the Government’s policy on age verification of pornography websites should be amended to include social media”.
We should be mindful of that recommendation. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that she is considering the Act’s position on social media as part of her reflections on the White Paper. We need action. Parents are no less troubled by the prospect of their children seeing online pornography because it is on Twitter rather than a website, and neither should we be.
I also gently remind the Minister that the Conservative party manifesto said that
“we will stop children’s exposure to harmful sexualised content online, by requiring age verification for access to all sites containing pornographic material.”
My only worry is about the caveat that states that, if pornography makes up only a third of the content on the site, it does not count. Again, I seek reassurance about that. I also ask the Minister how the Government can justify protecting children from pornographic material online only in certain circumstances, when their manifesto commitment contained no hint of any qualification or limitation on their age-verification checks strategy.
When the Digital Economy Bill left the Commons, the regulator was empowered to block all non-photographic child sex images, regardless of age verification. That made complete sense because section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 makes it absolutely clear that it is a criminal offence for anyone of any age, including anyone over 18, to possess such material. However, in the other place, amendments were introduced to accommodate the wishes of adults. I am ever mindful that some 71% of MPs—parliamentarians in this House—want stronger protection, and I know that the Minister wants that, too. I suggest that this must urgently be rectified.
Similarly, when the Bill left the Commons, the regulator had the power to block, regardless of age verification, all violent pornography that it would be a criminal offence to supply to anyone of any age, including those aged 18 and above, under the Video Recordings Act 1984. That is no longer the case. The Digital Economy Act cannot send out the message that the normalisation of sexual violence against women is worth accommodating. Of course I understand that, under section 29, there will be scope for these issues to be reviewed between 12 and 18 months after implementation.
The Digital Economy Act 2017 (Amendment) (Definition of Extreme Pornography) Bill was tabled in the other place—by Baroness Howe—and, during last week’s debate on these regulations a number of peers pressed the Government to give the Bill time. It is notable that, rather than saying no, the Minister, Lord Ashton, undertook to speak to the Chief Whip, and I very much hope that the Minister in this House will do the same. I congratulate her on tabling the motions, and I look forward to our working together to make this stronger, because that is what we all want.
Margot James
With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) for his support for the regulations. I agree with him that—as I said in my opening remarks—they are a contribution to the greater security of children and young people online, but, as I think the whole House agrees, they are not a total solution.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what further steps we were taking, and asked about their timings. I reassure him that the Secretary of State will review the performance of the regulations within 12 to 18 months of their taking effect. As part of that review, and in response to the deep concern that has been expressed by many Members in all parts of the House this evening about the extreme nature of pornography, we will look at the fact that this being behind age verification should not be a licence for the production of that sort of material. The Secretary of State will also be empowered to reconsider the definitions of extreme pornography. I thank him for remaining in the Chamber throughout the debate. I am sure that he has noted the will of the House that we revisit those definitions, which do not appear to me to be fit for purpose.
A White Paper on online harms will be published early in the new year. The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the desirability of placing a duty of care on social media platforms, which are relevant to the debate and which have a far wider impact than the issue that we are debating tonight. I reassure him that we are considering a duty of care as part of the development of that White Paper. I look forward to his further contributions on how to make such a duty effective in this context.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) mentioned the risk that pornographic sites would flood themselves with non-pornographic material in order to evade the scope of the regulations. We have considered that. My Department and the British Board of Film Classification have held discussions with commercial providers of pornography sites, and we have encountered a great willingness on the part of those operators to fall in line with age-verification measures. Indeed, they are setting up arrangements to do so. We consider it unlikely that sites will go to the trouble of being flooded with non-pornographic content but, if we turn out to be over-optimistic on that front, my hon. Friend can be assured that that would weigh heavily with the Secretary of State when he reviews the operation of the regulations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, mentioned the Lords amendments that had facilitated the availability of extreme pornography involving violence, and even involving children, if generated via technology as opposed to human actors. That strikes me as a grotesque loophole. I agree with my right hon. Friend and others that Baroness Howe’s Bill, which seeks to render this activity illegal, is worthy of our consideration, and I commit the Government to considering it as a potential means of combating that sickening loophole.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who has huge expertise in this area, mentioned the predominantly coercive, violent and gendered basis of the grotesque abuse of women in much of the content, and the effect that that could have on the minds of young people as they develop into adulthood. Let me reassure her, as I reassured my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, that we will definitely consider her comments. She made a number of worthwhile suggestions, and I will write to her, as time does not permit me to go through all of them in turn.
I am sure I was not alone in my surprise when the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) declared that the Liberal Democrats would oppose the regulations, on the broad basis that they do not go far enough. I think that the rest of the House agrees that they do not yet go far enough in tackling the problem before us. She must agree, however, that certain aspects of this are very difficult. Tackling pornographic content on a site like Twitter is very difficult, because to introduce a blanket ban on anyone under the age of 18 accessing a social media platform of that nature would have serious unintended consequences. We need to get these matters right and, rather than the Liberal Democrats just opposing these measures, they would do well to contribute to the debate. I urge the hon. Lady’s party to reconsider its position, which if unchanged will lead it into disrepute.
I am grateful for the comments from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He reminds me of my party’s manifesto commitment to end the access of children and young people to pornography sites. I agree with him that we need to go further, but I commend these regulations to the House as a very good start and I thank hon. Members for their support this evening.
Mr Speaker
We come now to a series of potentially deferrable motions: motions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Not moved.
Speaker’s Statement
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I indicated to the House earlier in response to the application under Standing Order No. 24 that I would advise the House before the end of the sitting if at all possible of the start time and intended duration of the debate under that Standing Order secured by the parliamentary leader of the Scottish National party. The reason why I gave what might be described as a contingent ruling or judgment was that I was awaiting advice from another quarter in respect of a separate but important matter. That advice has not to date been forthcoming, and therefore I have to make a judgment on the basis of what is known to me now. I am sorry if this sounds rather abstruse, but I think it will be clear at any rate to those who have sought tomorrow’s or Wednesday’s debate. In the absence of clarification on the other matter that was being considered for possible attention of the House, I propose that the debate under Standing Order No. 24 shall take place tomorrow at the start of public business, and that it shall last for up to three hours. If subsequent to now there is any intelligence suggesting that that arrangement could usefully be revisited, of course the party that has secured the debate will be advised of that and given the opportunity to consider an alternative time if it so wished, and we would try to proceed by consensus. But as things stand I propose that that debate in the name of the Scottish National party should take place as the first item of public business tomorrow for up to three hours. I hope that that is helpful to colleagues.
Kayden Dunn
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I should start by saying that due to personal events the family cannot be here with us tonight, but they are watching.
I am here today to tell a tragic story, one that I sincerely wish had never happened, but nevertheless it is a story that needs to be told, even at this time of year. It is a story of loss, of a family let down by our criminal justice system and of a community united in grief.
At the heart of this story is a wonderful little boy named Kayden Lee Dunn. Kayden was a happy, healthy little boy with a huge personality, big blue eyes and a laugh his mum said could “fill the world with joy.” His mum, Tonie, has told me that when she first held him and stared into those big, shiny blue eyes, she tried to imagine the perfect future for her little boy. She thought about what his life might hold and the role he might play in the world he had just come into. Perhaps he would grow up to be a policeman, a footballer or even a dancer. Whatever the future might hold, Tonie knew that she would always be proud of Kayden and that he would always make her proud.
Kayden was full of energy, and he loved to learn. At the age of three, he would play games on his way to nursery with his mum, trying to spot shapes in the clouds or count how many cars there were of each colour. Red was his favourite. He loved going to school, too. In his last few months of year 2, he was engrossed in his lessons about knights and castles. Learning his times tables was a different story, but Kayden was determined to get them right, practising every night at the kitchen table and so proud of himself when he finally cracked his three and four times tables. In 2015, he made his acting debut in the school Christmas play. His line was, “To the moon and the stars.” That was a line that would come up again and again with his family. Whenever Kayden wanted to know how much his mum loved him, that was always her answer: “To the moon and the stars.”
For Kayden’s family, it is fitting that we should be having this debate in the week before Christmas, because this was his favourite time of year. He would spend Christmas eve making keepsakes and baking cakes with his parents and siblings, waiting for the joy of Christmas morning, with the laughs, the excitement and—with lots of young children—the noise as the gifts were unwrapped. If he were here today, Kayden would be fizzing in anticipation for next week.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the hon. Lady beforehand to ask if I could make a comment in the debate. I sympathise with her and with the family who have lost a loved one, because just last week in my constituency, a wee three-year-old boy was knocked down on Thursday night and passed away on Saturday past. That was the second death in that family; their wee girl died some 18 months ago. I just want to put on record my sympathy for the family and to agree with the hon. Lady that Christmas should be a time for fun and families. They called that wee boy in my constituency Kai Corkum, and his mum and dad and his two wee brothers are grieving for him today.
Ruth Smeeth
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am sure that the whole House sends its condolences to Kai’s family.
Unfortunately, Kayden Dunn will not be with us this Christmas, nor any other. On 14 April 2016, while he was playing with friends after school, Kayden was run over and killed in my constituency. He was just seven years old. The driver’s name was Shakeeb Zamir, and he was driving without insurance. He had taken his father’s car without permission—a car he was not legally authorised to drive. The investigation into Kayden’s death concluded that at the moment of the accident the car was travelling at between 38 and 41 mph—far in excess of the speed limit—on a quiet residential street in the middle of Sneyd Green. When Kayden stepped into the road, the driver did not even brake.
What happened next cemented this tragic event as an act not only of gross irresponsibility but of heartlessness. As Kayden lay mortally wounded in the street, the driver got out of his car and checked the vehicle for damage. Then, without a second glance, he got back in and drove away. Although he later returned to the scene on foot, accompanied by his father, that belated gesture of self-preservation was too late to help little Kayden. He died from his injuries in Birmingham Children’s Hospital five days later, on 19 April, 2016.
This was a tragedy beyond measure for Kayden’s family and friends. He was a bubbly, blue-eyed little boy. His mum said he was cheeky, full of joy and brought a smile to everyone’s face. In an instant, this treasured son and brother, this bundle of energy who would spend all afternoon on his trampoline shouting, “Mummy, I’ve done 250 bounces; I’m shattered,” was gone—taken—but, as heartbreaking as that is, it got even worse. This family, who had already lost their child, would be denied justice, too. After pleading guilty to causing death by careless driving, the perpetrator was sentenced to 12 months—just 12 months for a life.
The sentence did not just devastate a family but infuriated and angered a community. Thousands of people signed a petition calling for an urgent review of the case. The driver claimed in court that his disgraceful actions at the scene were due to shock, yet CCTV footage of the incident shows him calmly leave the car, checking only for possible vehicle damage and seemingly showing no concern for Kayden’s critical condition. His actions both before sentencing and after his release also demonstrate an absence of remorse. Following his release, Kayden’s killer was handed a number of conditions and has broken several of them. Shortly after his release, he was jailed for a further 12 weeks after being caught behind the wheel of a car in defiance of a driving ban. He is not supposed to make contact with the family, yet he approached them in a local convenience store just before he returned to prison.
The family have also seemingly fallen through the cracks with the probation service. The family were informed that it would organise a victims meeting, so that Kayden’s family could confront the perpetrator in a safe environment and have the chance to express what his actions had done to them, the impact on their family and their complete devastation. However, such a meeting never materialised, despite the promises of the probation service at the time. To lose a child, especially at such a young age, is to endure a wound that never heals. For the family to see the perpetrator treated so leniently and to be made to feel insecure in their own community is to have salt rubbed into that wound in the cruellest way possible. My constituents have been let down by the Crown Prosecution Service, which failed to secure a punishment befitting the crime, and by the probation service, which seems uncommitted to enforcing the conditions that were still in place to protect this grieving family.
In October 2017, the Government announced that the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving would be raised from 14 years to life imprisonment. That was the right decision and I welcome it, but it came too late for Kayden’s family and it will fail to deliver justice in future unless prosecutors pursue charges that fit the crime and do not reduce such heinous acts to the lighter charge of death by careless driving. We do not just need the right sentencing guidelines; we need to ensure that the right charge is brought in the first place.
While our institutions may have failed on this occasion, our community stepped up. I have already mentioned the thousands who supported the campaign for justice for Kayden, but that is nothing compared with the extraordinary outpouring of love and support in Sneyd Green and beyond in my great city of Stoke-on-Trent. Thousands of pounds have been raised and a permanent memorial to Kayden can now be found in the heart of the community where he went to school and where his family still live. In the midst of that good will and kindness, Kayden’s family decided to give something back to the community.
Throughout this awful period, Kayden’s family have spoken glowingly about the care that Kayden received at the hands of our NHS and the support that was there for the family in their darkest hour—the air ambulance staff, the emergency NHS practitioners, the police, the school, the residents’ association and the wider community. To thank the community, the family launched the Kayden Dunn memorial fund, and one of their first acts was to raise funds to donate parcels for families who will unfortunately have similar experiences to theirs, encouraging people to donate the vital items that families need in times of unexpected crisis, such as toothpaste, shower gel and clean underwear, to Birmingham Women’s and Children’s hospital to ensure that those essentials will be available for other families.
I am immensely proud to represent a place where such care and community spirit exist, and I am honoured to represent this family who have endured so much and shown such courage in the face of tragedy. My speech to this House is nearly over, but there is no end to this story for Kayden’s family. The pain of losing a loved one never leaves; we simply learn to bear it. In this instance, that pain is made worse by the knowledge that justice has not been delivered, but this family is inspirational, and their new daughter, Angel, has helped them survive and thrive together.
However, we will not forget that the man who stole Kayden’s life has been allowed to go with his own without serving an adequate punishment for his crime and without showing any genuine remorse for his actions. His sentence was an affront to justice and an insult to a suffering family. It is too late to change that, too late to bring Kayden back and too late to hold those who took him from us to account, but it is not too late to learn the lessons of this case and to apply them to try to ensure that no other family will have to suffer the way that this family has.
Words cannot give Kayden Dunn his life back, but they can honour and preserve his memory. While his life was all too brief, they can ensure that his name and his memory will live on long after us through the records of this place. In that spirit, I believe that the final words should not belong to me, but to Kayden’s mum, Tonie. In her eulogy for little Kayden, she said:
“I miss him so much. I wrote this so you could all have an insight into my boy’s life, not to upset you but to show you how proud I am of my baby, and to show you what a beautiful impact he had on our lives. Memories will never fade and I’ll always be grateful for my little blue-eyed boy.”
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) for securing this debate. This is a genuinely horrifying case, and I hope I will be able slightly to express our debt of gratitude to her and to Kayden Dunn’s family for bringing this case to the House.
It begins, of course, as a terrible personal story of a little boy. Anybody looking at the photographs or hearing the hon. Lady talk about Kayden on a trampoline or in his school play will feel the horror of what happened, which is something that has ramifications for all our lives, whether or not we are parents. I am the father of a four-year-old boy and an 18-month-old boy, and I think of such incidents every time I go to the road. All of us, in different ways, will reflect on this, and I hope that all of us will reflect on the justice system and on driving.
At the heart of this is the crime committed by a young man at the wheel of a car, which led to something so horrifying as the loss of a young life. It raises for us a couple of issues that I hope to touch on before I conclude. First, the Ministry of Justice must take some practical steps to learn from Kayden Dunn’s case. The hon. Lady specifically raised the case of the probation service and what we can do on restorative justice. Restorative justice is hugely important, and it can really help the business of healing and it can really help a family, like Kayden’s family, come to terms with somebody who has committed such a crime. There have been delays in this case and, as we have explained to Kayden’s mother, part of it is due to her personal family circumstances. I believe a meeting has now taken place—on 16 November—and we will now reach out to her again to see whether there is more we can do to facilitate this.
The broader question of law, moving from the probation service to sentencing, is very important. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, there is the broader issue of how we deal with people who cause death by their actions in a motor car. We all need to remember the fundamental fact that a motor car is, in effect, a lethal weapon: it is tonnes of metal, with a powerful engine, travelling at a very great speed.
The awful truth is that recent statistics suggest that 25% of young men aged between 17 and 21 have a car crash. That is 25% of young men aged between 17 and 21 at the wheel of this lethal weapon driving carelessly or dangerously.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
My heart goes out to Kayden’s family. Sadly, what we have heard tonight is not an isolated incident. The Minister talks about a car being a lethal weapon, and anybody else killing somebody with a lethal weapon would be charged with murder. Will there be any steps to change the law to make the lethal weapon of a car being driven dangerously murder?
Rory Stewart
That is probably the central question in this whole debate. The answer, of course, is that, in terms of the loss of life, it is like murder. The act has killed someone, and that life can never be given back. The difference between murder and this, of course, is in the intention of the individual, which is a very difficult thing to talk about. English law traditionally distinguishes between somebody intentionally trying to kill someone, and somebody whose acts, through recklessness in this case, have resulted in a death. One reason why we are moving to increase the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving to a life sentence is that we believe strongly that this is, if not quite murder, indistinguishable in effect from manslaughter.
There are two types of manslaughter—illegal act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter. We could argue that somebody at the wheel of a car killing somebody else either by speeding or drink-driving, which would be an unlawful act, or simply by driving dangerously, is breaching their duty of care to other road users. Their recklessness lies in the fact that they ought to be aware, or any reasonable person would be aware, that their actions had a high likelihood of resulting in death.
There are also things we need to do on the broader issue of road safety that do not relate directly to Kayden Dunn’s case but which are important for future cases. Some good campaigns have been run in this House drawing attention to how vulnerable cyclists and pedestrians can be. Tragically, Kayden is one of almost 440 pedestrians killed this year in the UK by motor cars.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I very much welcome the debate and the fact that causing death by dangerous driving will attract a life sentence. Will the Minister say more about what will happen in cases where the result is not death but serious injury? What sentence will that attract?
Rory Stewart
The case of serious injury is another thing we have been reviewing, and we are currently looking at that issue from different directions. We have been looking at increasing the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving. Secondly, we have been looking at increasing the penalty for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. We have been looking at the issue of causing injury and the position of vulnerable road users, in particular, cyclists, of whom more than 100 are killed a year, pedestrians, of whom about 450 are killed a year, and even people on horses, of whom nearly 40 are killed a year. My hon. Friend asked about injuries, and the answer is that such a case would attract a two or three-year maximum sentence, but that is something we are examining.
I do not wish to take up too much of the House’s time, because Kayden Dunn’s case is so horrifying, and so personal to Kayden’s family and to the community in Stoke, that I almost feel it is slightly inappropriate for me, as a Minister, to reduce it to the language of the Chamber or of a policy debate. However, the issue of road safety matters to us all, and Kayden Dunn’s case gives us an opportunity to reflect on that. The truth is that in 1926 4,800 people were killed in road traffic accidents in Britain. By 1966, the number had risen to 8,000, whereas this year 1,700 people were killed. So our roads are getting safer and fewer people are getting killed. Obviously, in 1926, when more than twice as many people were killed, there were far fewer cars on roads, but 1,700 people is still far, far too many. That needs not only a legal response—it needs proper judicial sentencing and punishment for people who break the law and kill people—but practical steps. It requires us to look closely at the driving test and at whether people should be re-tested. It requires us to look at the position of professional drivers, as, sadly, quite a lot of injuries are caused by people whose jobs lead them to drive unusual numbers of hours. It leads us to look at road design, what happens on the streets and the way we set out the markings. It leads us to think about road safety campaigns for children in schools. It leads us to think about road safety for cyclists, about protective gear for cyclists and, of course, about motorcyclists, who are currently probably the second most vulnerable group on the road.
None of that can take us away from the individual case, so let me finish by saying again that the case of Kayden Dunn has been an opportunity for us all in the House to reflect, over a serious half hour, on the horror and the tragedy that lies behind the language of our law. Too often, here, we have pieces of paper and talk in an abstract way. We forget the real people—the real victims—and the fact that when somebody is killed, there is not a single victim; the ripples of that death spread through an entire family and then through an entire community.
By courageously working with her Member of Parliament to bring this case to Parliament, Kayden’s mother has made several things happen. First, to learn from Kayden’s tragic death, we must improve road safety in any way we can. Secondly, we have to look at our justice system and think about the ways in which that system is fair and whether it addresses the question of the impact of a person’s act on a victim, and balances that with questions of loss and remorse. One question raised in the debate was whether the young man who was driving the car felt the appropriate remorse. It is right that in our legal system the showing of remorse or lack of remorse can act as a mitigating or aggravating factor in the determination of the length of a sentence. That leads us back to the broader issue around extending the maximum penalties.
In the end, the tribute has to go back to Kayden Dunn and his family—back to that little glimpse of a young boy on a trampoline, to a glimpse of a young boy at a school play. There was also a glimpse of another young man. God forbid that we judge another human being, but perhaps we can move on from the case and all reflect on this when we get behind the wheel of a car. The car is a weapon and, whenever we get into it, it could kill someone—it could kill a young child. If any of us thinks of speeding in a residential area or, God forbid, thinks of getting into a car uninsured or driving without a licence, we are acting with such gross negligence and such recklessness that it must be equated morally with the most criminal or grossly negligent acts that we commit.
I hope we can take away from this debate the beauty of that young man’s life and a strong sense from this Chamber going out to society that we will remember Kayden Dunn with enormous, sincere respect for him and his family and for the way they have reached out to Parliament. We should also take away the hope that in future, there will not be many more Kayden Dunns.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Markets in Financial Instruments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Markets in Financial Instruments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma? The Treasury has been undertaking a programme of legislation to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period, there continues to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for financial services in the UK. The Treasury is laying before Parliament statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to deliver that, and several of them have already been debated in this place, and in the House of Lords. The SI being debated today is part of that programme. It was debated in the House of Lords on 28 November.
The regulations address legal deficiencies in the EU markets in financial instruments regulation and its accompanying directive; in the UK legislation implementing the directive; in other related domestic financial services legislation; and in EU delegated regulations. I will refer to those collectively as MiFID II. The instrument is extremely important for the financial services sector, as without it, essential components of financial services legislation would become inoperable, should the UK leave the EU without a deal. The approach taken in the legislation aligns with that of other SIs being laid before Parliament under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: it provides continuity by maintaining existing legislation at the point of exit, but amending deficiencies where necessary and introducing transitional provisions to ensure that it works effectively in a no-deal context.
MiFID II is a significant set of EU legislation that regulates the buying, selling and organised trading of shares, bonds and more complex financial instruments. It governs the practices of investment firms, exchanges and portfolio managers among others, and came into effect across the EU on 3 January 2018. One feature of MiFID II is that it requires buyers and sellers on financial markets to disclose data, such as price and volume information for their trades, to bring transparency to the process of price formation in financial markets.
Exemptions from those requirements are available in several cases, and formulae are used to calculate whether a trade may fall under an exemption. They are generally specified by reference to a proportion of pan-EU trading data. However, in a no-deal scenario, the UK may no longer have access to the pan-EU data that the European Securities and Markets Authority uses to calculate the appropriate thresholds. Calculating those thresholds at a UK-only level may create different thresholds in the UK and the EU. That may create opportunities for regulatory arbitrage and market disruption.
The instrument therefore grants the Financial Conduct Authority new flexibilities and a set of temporary powers, which will last for a period of up to a maximum of four years from exit day, to address certain operational difficulties that the FCA may face after exit. The powers will allow the FCA some controlled flexibility over how the MiFID II transparency regime is operated. The FCA’s temporary powers are required because the FCA will not be immediately ready on exit day to operate the transparency regime independently. One challenge facing the FCA is that it does not at present collect all the data that it will require to operate the transparency system on exit day. The FCA will need time to build appropriate IT systems to collect the data required to operate the transparency regime.
The FCA will also need to consider market movements in the immediate aftermath of the UK’s exit from the EU before it can estimate an equilibrium on which to base certain adjustments to the UK’s transparency regime. Accordingly, the FCA’s powers will include the ability to freeze certain pre-exit-day transparency calibrations, so that they have continued binding effect on exit day and for a period thereafter, until such time as the FCA can collect and produce its own data.
The FCA will also have temporary powers to suspend certain transparency provisions during the transitional period. For instance, it will have the power to stop the dark trading of shares, to ensure that such dark trading does not unduly harm price formation in UK markets. To be clear, the intention in granting the temporary powers is to enable the FCA to operate the transparency regime in the UK from exit day and beyond.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am sorry, but I have not read the regulations, so the Minister may be able to help me. Do they also provide the FCA with the additional skills and resources it will need to undertake that rigorous and important role?
John Glen
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to draw attention to the significant resources that will be required. The FCA has been in conversation with my officials in the Treasury, and we are reassured that it is in a position to do the work, and that it can do so under the provisions of the levy that it has.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm, for the avoidance of all doubt, that all the powers in the regulations are temporary and time-limited, and that the powers do not give rise to the right to increase taxation?
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
If the powers are temporary, it would be helpful to know what kind of regime we would have in the long term in the event of a no deal, and whether that would still make us competitive in this area.
John Glen
This SI onshores the existing MiFID II regime under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Circumstances that the Government do not wish for—no deal—would clearly necessitate additional legislation in the next Session. I am working with officials to develop that legislation, so that we would maintain the most competitive regime possible in a no-deal situation, but that falls without the scope of this statutory instrument.
John Glen
In a no-deal situation, there will be a variety of scenarios with respect to the nature of our relationship with the EU; the calibration of our long-term competitive regime for financial services would depend on the calibration of that relationship, and legislation would be brought forward in the light of that.
I will make progress. To be clear, the intention in granting these temporary powers is to enable the FCA to operate the transparency regime in the UK from exit day and beyond, and to maintain existing outcomes, as far as that is reasonably possible. The 2018 Act does not empower the Government to make non-deficiency-related policy changes to EU legislation. If the Treasury is satisfied that the FCA is ready to undertake its transparency functions, the four-year transitional period may be ended earlier by the Treasury by the issue of a direction that must be laid before both Houses and published.
Some longer-term flexibility will also be given to the FCA to reflect the fact that it may not have access to pan-EU trading data after exit, and therefore may need to use reliable trading data from other countries when calculating certain transparency thresholds.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Given the extensive nature of the measure, could the Minister outline what further resources he has made available to the FCA to deal with this? Is there some sort of impact assessment of the FCA’s capability?
John Glen
We have been working closely with the FCA for several months since the SI was published on 5 October. The FCA has discretion to increase its levy if it needs additional resources. That is not something it has communicated to us up to this point, but we have an active, ongoing weekly dialogue. That is a matter for it to bring forward in due course if necessary.
The report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Sub-Committee B, which was published on 1 November, focused primarily on the transparency regime. It mentioned the adequacy of resourcing for the FCA to carry out its new responsibilities—an issue that has already been raised. The Treasury has been working closely with the FCA to deliver the programme of legislation. It is clearly important that the regulators be adequately resourced to deal with the impact of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. I reiterate that I have full confidence that the FCA has the expertise required to run an effective transparency regime in the UK, irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations with the EU.
The FCA will also publish a statement of policy about how the temporary powers will be used before exit day. That statement of policy and any subsequent changes to it will come into effect only if the Treasury does not raise an objection to it on specified grounds. The Treasury may object to an FCA statement if it would potentially prejudice an international agreement that the UK hoped to reach, or if the Treasury believes that it may lead to a breach in international obligations. In a no-deal scenario, it is important that the Treasury is able to manage negotiations with international partners effectively. This objection mechanism is a sensible way of ensuring that.
Parliament will, of course, be able to scrutinise and question Treasury Ministers and the FCA further on their approach to the temporary powers—for example, through the Select Committee system—as Parliament does now. The SLSC report also noted that it would have been helpful if the FCA’s policy statement on the use of these powers had been made available to the House before this debate. That has not been possible, given the time the FCA needs to consider the drafting of such a statement. However, the FCA has provided assurance that a statement of policy will be ready at least four weeks before exit if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.
I turn to the other issues in this instrument. Currently, certain regulatory functions under MiFID II are carried out by EU authorities—principally, the European Commission and the European Securities and Markets Authority. The Commission and ESMA will, naturally, have no mandate to carry out these functions once the UK leaves the EU. Therefore, this instrument transfers the functions of the Commission to the Treasury and ESMA’s functions to the FCA and the Bank of England. It also transfers responsibility for making binding technical standards that specify the detailed regulations that firms must abide by from ESMA to the FCA, the Bank of England or the Prudential Regulation Authority. That is consistent with the approach set out in the Financial Regulators’ Powers (Technical Standards etc.) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were debated in this House on 10 October 2018.
This instrument also deletes provisions in retained EU law that would become redundant when the UK leaves the EU, such as requirements regarding automatic recognition of an action by an EU body, and other references to EU bodies and EU member states. In line with the Government’s overall approach, this instrument removes obligations on UK authorities to co-operate and share information with European economic area authorities, although this does not preclude UK authorities from co-operating and sharing information with EEA authorities on a discretionary basis.
Another important set of revisions concerns the treatment of third-country regimes. Under MiFID II, certain elements of a third country’s regulatory and supervisory regime may be deemed by the European Commission to be equivalent to the requirements of MiFID. For example, under MiFID II, trading in certain instruments must take place on recognised markets. If a third country is deemed equivalent for that purpose, MiFID II allows trading to take place on those third-country markets. To ensure that the MiFID II equivalence regimes can continue to operate effectively in the UK after exit, the Treasury will take on the European Commission’s function of making equivalence decisions for third country regimes. Existing Commission equivalence decisions are also incorporated into UK law so they will continue to apply to those third countries.
Debbie Abrahams
I extend my earlier question to the capability in the Treasury. Are there sufficient skills and resources in the Treasury to undertake its new and additional roles?
John Glen
Absolutely. I can confirm that those skills exist. New equivalence decisions issued by the Treasury will be laid before Parliament and will be scrutinisable.
To provide as much certainty to business as possible, the Government have introduced a temporary permissions regime, as set out in the EEA Passport Rights (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were made on 6 November. That will enable relevant EEA firms operating in the UK through a passport to continue their activities in the UK for a limited period after exit day, and will allow them to apply for UK authorisation, or transfer business to a UK entity, as necessary.
This instrument makes special provisions for EEA firms that intend to operate in the UK under the temporary permissions regime by ensuring that they will not be deemed in breach of the UK’s MiFID II rules if they can demonstrate that they comply with corresponding provisions in the EU’s MiFID II rules. This is necessary because, in the absence of such provisions, legal conflicts could arise that may impede the activities of firms operating under the temporary permissions regime in the UK in certain areas, and that may require them to comply with duplicative regulations.
This provision will apply only to certain provisions of MiFID II during the temporary permissions regime, and only where the EEA MiFID II requirement has equivalent effect to the UK MiFID II requirement. This instrument will also put in place transitional arrangements for data reporting service providers, which are entities that report details of transactions to regulators and publish information under the transparency regime.
Finally, under the transaction reporting regime in MiFID II, investment firms are required to submit a report to their national regulatory authorities following the execution of a trade. Those transaction reports are used by regulators to detect and prevent market abuse. UK branches of EEA firms do not send reports to the FCA, but rather send them to their home regulator, which can then share them between EU regulators. As we will no longer be part of that system, the draft regulations will require UK branches of EEA firms to report to the FCA, in the same way that UK branches of non-EEA firms are required to do. In addition, this instrument provides that firms must continue to report on trades in financial instruments admitted to trading, or traded, on trading venues in the UK and in the EU. That will maintain the existing scope for the monitoring of markets by the FCA and will minimise disruption and adjustment costs for firms.
The Treasury has been working closely with the FCA, the Bank of England and industry bodies—representing large and small firms—in the drafting of these regulations. The Treasury published the instrument in draft, along with an explanatory policy note, on 5 October 2018 to maximise transparency to Parliament, industry and the public, ahead of laying it before Parliament. Regulators and industry bodies have generally been supportive of the provisions in this SI.
To conclude, the Government believe that it is necessary to ensure that MiFID II continues to function appropriately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Good afternoon, Mr Sharma. As ever, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair.
Once again, the Minister and I are in Committee to discuss Treasury-related statutory instruments that make provision for the financial regulatory framework after Brexit in the event that we crash out without a deal. On each of those occasions, my Labour Front-Bench colleagues and I have spelled out our objections to the use of secondary legislation in this manner, as well as the challenges of ensuring proper scrutiny of the sheer volume of legislation passing through Committee.
The frustration that we will spend time and resources creating a framework that might never be used is a point that has already been made several times in Committee. All of us hope that the draft regulations will never have to be used; no deal would be so seriously detrimental to the UK that it is hard to believe that it is anything more than a threat from the Government to try to force their deal through. However, we must recognise that the instruments passing through the Committee might well not disappear on 29 March 2019. Given the chaotic events of the past few weeks, we simply cannot treat lightly the possibility of no deal.
What we are doing today could therefore end up in real and substantive changes to the statute book, so the measures need proper, in-depth scrutiny. If the Government end up without a deal, we have to bear in the mind the stress that the financial markets would be under. We believe that the draft regulations must be considered through that lens, because they would certainly have to be robust.
Members of the Committee might be aware that this draft statutory instrument was originally scheduled for discussion on 28 November, but that was postponed. That is because the Opposition requested that a full debate take place on the Floor of the House regarding this transposition. As has been mentioned previously in these Committees, we must agree to about 70 Treasury-related SIs to ensure that markets do not grind to a halt in the event of no deal. The secondary legislation process contains, as a democratic backstop—if I dare use the word—the option for a debate on the Floor of the House. In the case of this instrument, we believe that to be essential. I will explain why.
I very much appreciate the efforts that the Minister personally and the civil service have made to brief us on the process, and the information that they have provided to us. Earlier today, in the Treasury, we had a most helpful meeting with the civil service staff working on this, as well with representatives of the Financial Conduct Authority. I understand that they are working extremely hard to draft this legislation in a tight timeframe, and I appreciate them taking the time to engage with us, but my conversation in the Treasury reinforced the enormous magnitude of the issues with which we are dealing in this Committee. We simply must have this debate on the Floor of the House, where Members may contribute and the issues can be discussed in the depth they deserve.
The draft SI is different in size and scope from those that have preceded it. The markets in financial instruments directive, or MiFID, as it is more commonly known, is a sprawling piece of legislation that affects our financial markets, from investment banks to retail investors. Now in its second iteration, named MiFID II, the directive has transformed pre and post-trade efficiency in the UK. It has progressed us towards more transparent markets, enshrined critical investor protection, and taken a tough line on inducements.
For anyone not so familiar with the recent changes, there was significant debate about what constitutes an inducement from a financial adviser to encourage an investor to buy a product or service. That resulted in sweeping changes to historical market practices, such as the bundling of free investor research by sell-side operators into execution relationships. We cannot allow any room for the UK to dial back on those measures, or any other measure that helps to improves the transparency and fairness of financial markets in the UK.
The volume of potential legislative changes from transposing MiFID has necessitated the production of a Keeling schedule, which Her Majesty’s Treasury has stated it will not draw up for any other SI. If the Government are going to the expense and trouble of producing such a schedule, it should form part of a proper process of democratic review that goes beyond the Committee Room. The shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), made that point during business questions last Thursday.
I wonder whether anyone in the room has come across a Keeling schedule before. We have some exceptionally distinguished Members here, but I would not be surprised if the answer were in single figures, because they are not used very often. A Keeling schedule is effectively a track changes on original legislation. It is necessitated by the significant scope of the alterations to the legislation. The last one needed was for the general data protection regulation. I think we can all attest to the sprawling reach of that item, given the effect on our inboxes. Just 18 Keeling schedules have been deposited in the Library since 2002. The Treasury has told us that it will not draw up such a schedule for any other SI, so how can the Government argue that an item demands a Keeling schedule but does not require a debate on the Floor of the House?
The Treasury’s impact assessment of the SI lists the familiarisation cost of it at £9.6 million. That far exceeds the next closest figure, which is for the capital requirements regulations, at £1.7 million. By comparison, the average equivalent cost for the remaining eight SIs for which the Treasury has conducted assessments is significantly lower at just £266,000. The Minister has reassured us on multiple occasions that policy decisions are not being made in the fabric of these instruments, but we must examine closely the implication of what we would be enabling.
The EU approach to drafting regulations, known as the Lamfalussy process, is being imported into UK law. The Treasury will enact the European Commission’s powers, and the FCA will take on the responsibilities of the European Securities and Markets Authority. That has wide-ranging implications for supervision. For example, it has been decided that the European Commission’s function of assessing equivalence would be transferred to the Treasury rather than the FCA, yet historically, equivalence decisions have been made by both parties in different circumstances. That should be properly examined and debated, rather than arbitrarily assigned.
In a letter to my colleague the noble Lord Tunnicliffe after the instrument was debated in the other place last month, Lord Bates explained that the intention is to continue the MiFID pre and post-trade transparency regime in the UK. To achieve that, the FCA will have the power to suspend the obligations for pre and post-trade transparency for a specified non-equity financial instrument or a class of non-equity financial instruments during a transitional period of up to four years beginning from exit day. That sounds to the Opposition like a very slippery slope.
Although the intention is that the balance of powers will be examined in future, we cannot be expected effectively to sign a blank cheque on the UK’s regulatory regime for four years. We understand, as the Minister explained, that the reason behind it is that the FCA will not be ready to operate the required framework of specified thresholds for transparency on day one. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) raised that issue very early on in the process. It is frustrating that we are receiving clarity on it only now.
Equally, it is challenging for the Opposition to assess the transfer of powers to the FCA without an accompanying policy statement. We are told that the policy statement will be made available before exit day, but it is difficult for us comprehensively to assess the implications of the SI without that information. That is before we have even touched on the FCA’s resources to cope with the new regime, a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham.
There are other issues bound up in the SI that we believe need further debate. Paragraph 7.15 of the explanatory memorandum states that EU trading venues will be denied
“the right to request access to a UK central counterparty (CCP)”
under the temporary permissions regime
“unless an equivalence decision is made by HM Treasury”
for that market segment. A lot of assumptions are bound up in that. It means that the European Commission’s function of assessing equivalence will be transferred to the Treasury, rather than the FCA. Is the Treasury set up to do that? Historically, the FCA has made decisions about equivalent jurisdictions.
Just two weeks ago, in this same Committee Room, the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) debated the draft Central Securities Depositories (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, through which the Bank of England was given powers on equivalence decisions. What governs the decision-making process for restoring those powers to different institutions? A small addendum is included on the future of UCITS—undertakings for the collective investment of transferable securities—funds, which is a significant product segment across the EU with inflows of tens of billions of dollars every month. I know from stakeholders that it suffers particular issues related to temporary permissions regime applications.
For more than a decade, MiFID has acted as the cornerstone of how financial markets operate in the UK. Today, we are proposing hauling that entire operation back into the purview of our own regulators and the Treasury if we end up leaving the EU without a deal. More than any other instrument in this process, this one cannot be subject to a top-level discussion by a small group of Members in Committee. The Government helpfully cleared an easy 90 minutes of time to debate this instrument last week when they pulled the debate on the Brexit agreement. That was our window to discuss things further.
There was ample time for this debate to take place on the Floor of the House this week, too; that would have allowed Members to contribute to the analysis. Any reasonable Government in any other reasonable circumstances would have agreed to that request, but this Government cannot afford to allow any EU-related business on to the Floor of the House of Commons, because they are not sure of their majority, but Governments who do not have a majority in the House of Commons are not Governments at all.
As stated at the outset, a no-deal scenario would be so disastrous for the UK that it is difficult to see it as much more than a negotiating tool, by means of which the Government will try to force Parliament’s hand. We do not want markets to be unprepared, but there must be proper scrutiny on what we decide, with objections recorded and recognised.
The Opposition believe that this instrument must be debated properly on the Floor of the House. That is why we intend to divide the Committee. I urge fellow Members who support real scrutiny and the sovereignty of Parliament to join us in voting against it.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. I begin by agreeing with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds); I will support him in that vote. There is ample time for this to be debated on the Floor of the House, if that is wished for. This afternoon we are debating pornography regulations there. If we can debate those there, I do not know why we cannot do the same for something almost as important—MiFID II and this statutory instrument.
There are so many issues that this statutory instrument encompasses that deserve great and serious attention from Members across the House. All Members should be allowed to participate in the debate, not just the small, dedicated crew here. Issues such as the significant data gap are of huge concern. It worries me greatly that between the FCA not having this information and having it, there is ample opportunity for our systems to be exploited. What assurance can the Minister give that that cannot happen? The response to the financial crash showed that gaps in oversight between regulators, the Bank of England and the UK Government can have disastrous consequences. We must hear some assurance that there will be ongoing discussions with all involved to ensure there is no gap for those who wish to exploit one. That would be incredibly serious.
As always, I stress that Scotland’s financial sector, which includes firms and workers in my constituency, has been clear that the interests of this sector are best served by us staying in the EU single market and the customs union. Ten years on from the crash, our financial services sector needs urgent reform—not new problems originating from the decision to go for a hard Brexit. Instead of planning how to minimise the damage, we should use our time to plan a successful future within in the EU, where we can use our skills to make things better, rather than starting from scratch with skills we do not yet have. That seems a huge waste of time and resources.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth picked up on the point that I usually make in Committee about the skills and resources of the FCA and all the other institutions. This draft SI sees a wheen more powers and responsibilities heading towards those institutions—and huge costs. I very much thank the Minister for the opportunity to meet the FCA, which the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson mentioned. I was not able to be there this morning, but I will certainly take up that invitation in the new year, because it is important to get its perspective.
The impact assessment is clear:
“The direct cost to the FCA of developing and adapting IT systems in order to carry out its new and revised responsibilities under the transaction reporting and transparency regimes is estimated at £3.5m to £4m”.
It also talks about the operational challenges for the FCA of the transparency regime. A whole load of other areas are mentioned in the impact assessment, which hon. Members would do well to have a look at. That is significant; it is a huge amount of money that we do not need to be spending on doing this. It is money that would be better spent in other ways.
I am also concerned about the costs to business. As I mentioned, huge costs are outlined in the Government’s impact assessment. Familiarisation costs are a staggering £9.6 million in total; that will affect 3,300 UK firms and 1,650 EEA firms. That is significant. Furthermore, there are the monetised non-familiarisation costs to business. The cost of changes to reporting requirements is £8,750,000; changes to IT systems are £1,750,000 as a one-off cost; and transition costs are £16,750,000. That is huge. On the back page, there are recurring costs to business, year in, year out. Changes to reporting requirements will mean an £8,750,000 recurring cost to firms, and changes to IT systems will mean a cost of £1,750,000. Those are huge costs to business. I would be interested to know how much was anticipated before we got into Brexit. How much was known beforehand? I bet that not an awful lot was known or anticipated.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde mentioned the four-year transitional period without a review clause. I, too, am concerned. How do we ensure any degree of scrutiny or transparency? Where is the House of Commons in that process? Basically, we are saying, “Yes, you guys go off for four years. Do what you like, and come back to us if you need to do it any sooner or any longer.” We are losing sight of scrutiny. It sticks in my craw that some people said that we were taking back control from unelected bureaucrats, but here we are handing it over to the nameless, faceless suits in the FCA. Again, that is certainly not what was argued in the campaign.
Lastly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Keeling schedule. Every day is a school day in this Committee, but it is very interesting that that has been used in such a limited sense. It is significant that the schedule goes through such a huge document line by line, tracking the changes. For that reason, for reasons of scrutiny, and to ensure clarity about all issues, I support the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson in favouring an open debate on the Floor of the House. I will vote with him this afternoon.
Debbie Abrahams
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I will keep my comments brief. I want to put on the record my dismay and despair at where we are. Without having had a meaningful vote on the Floor of the House, we now have to discuss so much legislation—
Debbie Abrahams
I will indeed. I am making a broader point about why we are here in Committee in the first place, and that is important. This is one of the most undemocratic Governments we have had in my lifetime. To back up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, the expectation that we will go through an SI with this much detail in half an hour to an hour is completely intolerable. I reiterate that this is so undemocratic. I know that the Minister, who served on the Work and Pensions Committee, is an honourable man. However, the Government really need to look at themselves in the mirror.
John Glen
I listened carefully to the Opposition’s remarks, and I will try hard to give a thorough response. Before I get into the detail, it is important to set out clearly that this programme of 70 SIs is about ensuring that if there is an outcome that the Government do not want—no deal—we have a comprehensive regime in place; that is something that we are determined to deliver across financial services.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde and others said about where the debate should take place. I acknowledge that this is complex legislation, but the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments say that it is within our powers to conduct the process in this way, in this place. I recognise that that is disputed, but all I can do is draw attention to the Joint Committee’s judgment.
I will need to write to the hon. Gentleman on the issue of inducement, but the point of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act is to maintain the standards that applied while we were in the EU. I reiterate that business decisions are not in my gift as Economic Secretary, but all SIs are approved on the Floor of the House.
A point was made about Keeling schedules. The Treasury will not produce Keeling schedules for anything else. This is undeniably complex legislation. We will produce Keeling schedules in a number of instances. They are internal documents that have not been sufficiently validated for publication, but Parliament decided when it passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act that powers could be used in that way to prepare us for exit.
On the transitional period being four years, it took approximately four years to develop the detail of the current transparency system and to put in place the systems needed to operate it. The calibration of the current regime is based on EU data. If, in the circumstances following the UK’s exit from the EU, it is not possible or desirable to use such data, the regime will need to be recalibrated to ensure that it achieves its intended effects. That will involve changes to the binding technical standards, the FCA developing the necessary IT infrastructure to operate the regime, and industry having adequate time to implement changes, hence the length of time.
The experience of implementing the current regime taught us that it is necessary to take the time to get things right, rather than rushing complicated policy and operational challenges through. However, the Treasury can end the transitional period at an earlier date if it considers those processes to have been completed, and that the FCA has the ability to run the MiFID II transparency regime before the end of the four-year period.
A point was made about the transitional regime reducing the transparency of trading within the UK, given the FCA’s powers to suspend certain transparency obligations, such as those applying to non-equities. The FCA has the power to suspend specified transparency obligations in respect of certain instruments during the transitional period. For instance, the FCA may suspend pre and post-trading transparency obligations in respect of bonds and structured finance products during the transitional period. It can use those powers only where that would advance the FCA’s integrity objective—and there are other constraints on its use of the powers. It is not intended or envisaged that the FCA would use those powers to effect a general or long-term suspension of transparency requirements in the UK; it would use them to match a suspension of those requirements in the EU. Without those powers, a suspension in the EU could create regulatory arbitrage between the UK and the EU—something that we wish to avoid.
I acknowledge the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central about the costs of regulatory and IT processes and the number of institutions affected—3,300 in the UK and 1,650 in the EEA. Of course, the assessment sets out the one-off costs and the ongoing costs. I accept that it would be preferable not do have to do this, but I point out that those sums would be divided over a quite large number of institutions.
As to the appropriateness of delegation, essentially the decision is made on the appropriate functional expertise. The FCA and the Treasury worked very closely leading up to the publication on 5 October. Firms are supportive, and they seek the continuity and orderly market functioning that are imperative for the City and the economy. I accept overall that the process is not perfect, but we have undertaken it in good faith, to establish a functioning regime in a no-deal situation.
I hope that that answers the questions that have been raised. The Government believe that the regulations are necessary, and I hope that the Committee will support them.
Question put.
Draft Gaming Machine (Miscellaneous Amendments and Revocation) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Mims Davies)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Gaming Machine (Miscellaneous Amendments and Revocation) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ryan. The regulations were laid before the House on 15 November, and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to debate them. The Gambling Act 2005 established a new system for the regulation of gambling in Great Britain. Section 235(1) defines a gaming machine as
“a machine which is designed or adapted for use by individuals to gamble (whether or not it can also be used for other purposes).”
The Categories of Gaming Machine Regulations 2007 define four categories of gaming machines, known as categories A, B, C and D. For the purposes of the 2005 Act, category B machines are divided into sub-categories.
Following consultation and the consideration of all relevant evidence, the Government announced in May our decision to reduce the maximum stake on sub-category B2 gaming machines, informally known as fixed odds betting terminals, to £2. The decision was met with enthusiasm from many quarters. Local authorities, charities, faith groups, interest groups and academics all submitted opinions in favour of a £2 limit. Parliament—including many hon. Members present today—was no exception in expressing its emphatic support for the Government’s intentions.
I want to add my personal thanks to the all-party parliamentary group on fixed odds betting terminals, led by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), for their consistent support on this policy. I worked closely on it with the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I thank her for all her work, and I am delighted to be in a position to bring forward this progressive legalisation.
These regulations give effect to the May decision by amending the Categories of Gaming Machine Regulations 2007 to reduce the maximum stake permitted for B2 gaming machines from £100 to £2 from 1 April 2019. They also make consequential changes to other secondary legislation. They amend the Gaming Machine (Circumstances of Use) Regulations 2007 and revoke the Gaming Machine (Circumstances of Use) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 to remove requirements that no longer apply as a result of the stake reduction. The latter regulations imposed a new requirement that players who wanted to access stakes in excess of £50 on sub-category B2 gaming machines had to load cash via staff interaction or use counter-based play. The amended and revoked provisions relate to gaming machines in which it was possible to stake more than £50. They are no longer relevant to sub-category B2 gaming machines.
Millions of people enjoy gambling responsibly, and the Government are committed to supporting a healthy industry. We do not want to stop people having fun, but we need to find the right balance between freedoms and protections. We are taking decisive action to ensure we have a responsible industry that continues to contribute to economic growth, while ensuring that the most vulnerable in our society are protected from gambling-related harms. The Secretary of State and I, and the industry, want to identify behaviour that could put people at risk of harm, and we want to be able to intervene early. Socially responsibly business is the only kind of business that we want to see in this sector.
Under the Gambling Act 2005, B2 gaming machines have a maximum stake of £100, which is by far the highest for any gaming machine in Great Britain. The maximum prize that can be won as a result of a single use is £500. The next highest limit on the high street is for B3 machines, where the maximum stake is £2 and the maximum prize is £500. Almost 14% of players of B2 machines are problem gamblers, which is currently the highest rate in terms of gambling activity in England. In addition, the highest proportion of those who contact GamCare, the main treatment provider, identified the machines in betting shops as their main form of gambling. Gaming machines in betting shops also account for one of the highest proportions of people in treatment for gambling addiction.
In October 2017, the Government published the consultation on proposals for changes to gaming machines and social responsibility measures, which invited views on proposals to reduce the maximum stake for B2 machines. The consultation received more than 7,000 responses and closed in January. The Government published their response on 17 May. After giving due consideration to all the information and evidence received, the Government decided that it would be appropriate to reduce the maximum stake for B2 gaming machines to £2. We concluded that the volume of high-level session losses was the best proxy for harm, and the evidence was that the harm from B2 gaming machines would be significantly reduced with a reduced maximum stake of £2. That was supported by the Gambling Commission’s advice that action on B2s should involve a stake limit between £2 and £30 if it is to have a significant effect on the potential for players to lose large amounts of money in a short space of time, with any further decrease a matter of judgment for the Government.
In comparison with other gaming machines on the high street, B2 machines are an outlier because of the speed with which it is possible to lose large amounts of money. B2s generate a greater proportion and volume of large-scale losses—for example, losses of more than £500 in a session—and the losses are larger and the sessions are longer for those who bet at the maximum stake of £100 than for those who play at a lower level.
Even cutting the maximum stake to £10 would have left problem gamblers and those who are most vulnerable exposed to losses that could cause them and their families significant harm. In particular, the Government noted that more than 170,000 sessions on B2 roulette ended with losses between £1,000 and £5,000. Such sessions persist at average stakes of between £5 and £10. By contrast, none involved average stakes of £2 or below. In addition, the Government considered that the reduction to £2 was more likely to target the greatest proportion of problem gamblers and therefore protect the most vulnerable players.
In coming to our conclusions, the Government considered the impact on those who live in more deprived areas and on their communities. Some of the most vulnerable to harm are likely to be people who can, sadly, least afford to lose large sums of money. Having considered those and other factors, the Government concluded that we would reduce the maximum B2 stake to £2.
The regulations amend the definition of a sub-category B2 gaming machine in the gaming machine regulations, so as to reduce the maximum stake permitted in respect of such a machine from £100 to £2. In consequence of that amendment, these regulations also amend the definition of a sub-category B3 gaming machine, so that B2 and B3 gaming machines can continue to be distinguished from one another by reference to the different places in which B2 and B3 machines are allowed to be made available. This approach draws on the power in section 236(4)(e) of the 2005 Act to permit the categorisation of gaming machines by reference to the premises in which they are used. Regulation 6 of the gaming machine regulations provides that sub-category B3 gaming machines may be available for use in casinos, betting premises, bingo premises and adult gaming centres, while sub-category B2 gaming machines may be available for use only in casinos and betting premises.
Having conducted a process of engagement with the industry, the Government announced in November that we would implement the stake reduction on 1 April 2019 —a date that is specified in the draft regulations and that the Government consider allows the industry sufficient time to make relevant changes. The industry has known about the Government’s intention to reduce stakes to £2 since May this year. The date announced last month provides further clarity to allow it to continue preparations.
We have said all along that protecting vulnerable consumers is our primary concern. As a responsible Government, it is also right that we take into account the needs of those employed in the gambling industry and that we provide time for an orderly transition. The date on which the draft regulations will come into force generated much opinion and debate, and it was right that those with strong views and evidence on the issue, including many Members, had the opportunity to share them. Most importantly, this significant change will help to stop extreme losses by those who can least afford them and to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Members will know that the Government’s draft Finance Bill was also amended so that the increase in remote gaming duty, paid by online operators, comes into effect in April 2019, at the same time as the reduction in stakes, in order to cover the negative impact on the public finances and to protect vital public services.
My appointment follows an extremely progressive year of policy developments. The intention of the Government’s wide-ranging gambling review is to continue to strike the right balance between socially responsible growth and protecting the vulnerable, including our children, from gambling-related harm. Let me be clear: the review and the legislation do not mark the end of Government action. We recognise that harm is not about only one product. We will act where there is evidence of harm, and we will always keep issues under review, as is our responsibility. We must ensure that people can have an open conversation about what responsible gambling looks like, in order to identify harmful behaviours both online and offline. Millions of people rightly enjoy gambling responsibly, and the Government are committed to supporting an industry that generates employment and investment.
However, while the Government want to see a healthy gambling industry, we also need to see one that is socially responsible and protects the most vulnerable in our communities. The industry is rightly coming to the table, which the Secretary of State and I strongly welcome. We will also continue to work with colleagues from other Departments, such as the Department for Education, to ensure that we co-ordinate our approach to young people, and the Department of Health and Social Care, to improve links between gambling treatment and other services. I am proud that the Government are taking forward this decisive measure. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ryan. I thank the Minister for her opening remarks.
This is an important day for those of us who want to see meaningful gambling reform in this country. FOBTs have long been the scourge of the high street, but today, due to the work of tireless campaigners, both inside and outside the House, we are poised to reduce the maximum FOBT stake to £2. The reduction will have a real impact on the prevention of problem gambling, so I welcome that decision.
I pay tribute to the people who got us here, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) and for Swansea East and the charities GambleAware and Gambling with Lives, but it is a shame that it has taken so long. I trust that the strength of feeling shown in the House and the resignation of a Minister of State whom I greatly respected, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, will act as a sufficient deterrent to future Secretaries of State who may wish to put industry profits before people’s lives.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
We fully support the draft regulations, but does my hon. Friend agree that it should not have taken the resignation of a good Minister to get us into this position? The Government should have listened to vigorous campaigning by so many colleagues and charities, rather than having to be forced into this scenario.
Dr Allin-Khan
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point: it should not have taken this long for us to reach this point, nor should it have required such extreme measures as the resignation of a fantastic Minister who will be sadly missed. Nevertheless, the draft regulations are a landmark in gambling reform, and the Government deserve some credit for eventually taking action to protect people from gambling harms. I hope that this is just the beginning.
The Opposition will not hamper the progress of the draft regulations, since they are designed to reduce problem gambling, but we have some areas of concern, which I hope the Minister will address. There is still a great deal that we can do to reduce the number of problem gamblers in the UK and prevent future generations from falling into the same traps. The whistle-to-whistle ban announced this month on gambling adverts in live sport is an encouraging sign that the gambling industry is open to reform, but we must ensure that it is meaningful, that live sport online is properly regulated, and that other media such as radio are not forgotten.
Labour recently published its review of problem gambling and its treatment, which proposes a handful of reforms that the Government could implement to make a very real difference. The levy on gambling operators to fund research, education and treatment should be raised from 0.1% to 1% and should be compulsory. New clinical guidelines should be developed so that problem gamblers can receive the best possible care and treatment, and the NHS’s funding should be increased so that it can provide that care and treatment across the country. Betting on credit cards should be banned, and it should be possible to block certain debit card transactions so that gamblers can be in control of their spending. Problem gambling rips families’ home lives apart. The Barclays mobile banking app is the first high street bank app to feature debit card transaction blocking, but I hope that other banks follow suit.
Those are straightforward steps that the Government could take very quickly, and I sincerely hope they do, but we also need to widen the conversation around gambling reform to ensure that we think about the industry as a whole. We know that the two main centres of gambling activity are high street betting shops and online gambling sites. By reducing FOBT stakes, we have addressed a major problem in high street betting shops, but more needs to be done. We need a conversation about whether we are prepared to accept the clustering of betting shops in areas of high deprivation, where the people who are most vulnerable are also the most targeted by gambling companies.
Preventing problem gambling in shops is crucial, but so is tackling online gambling. The most obvious issue is online gambling advertising, which is effectively not age-restricted and can be found on almost any website. However, there is also the issue of gambling within online games, whether that is betting on skins in Fortnite or betting on horse-racing in Grand Theft Auto. We need to explore the impact that these parts of games have on the minds of the young people who predominantly play them.
This is a day to remember for UK gambling reform, but more importantly it is an opportunity to recognise what is still to be done. We owe it to the people we represent not to stop here.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ryan, and to serve under your chairmanship. I want to say at the outset how much I welcome the regulations. Although I am tempted to do so, I will not ram it down throats that this is a Government climbdown, because this is an important day. So often in this place, particularly given the volatile nature of this Parliament, I walk home at night wondering why I am here and what my contribution is. The fact that I can be here tonight to support the regulations fills me with a lot of pride.
I will briefly touch on the Finance Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde secured an amendment regarding a review of fixed-odds betting terminals. I very much hope that that amendment will not be removed on Report. The statistics about the amount of money that people lose are deeply saddening—£192 per spin. Self-regulation has not worked. From the moment I was elected to this House in 2017, I was struck by the incredibly aggressive way in which the Association of British Bookmakers pursued me and other Members of Parliament. It tries all sorts of ways to get in touch with us. I condemn on the record its tactics, and the way that it tries to intimidate Members of Parliament. I will not even begin to go into some of the tactics that were deployed in my constituency.
It was interesting that the Minister and the shadow Minister have rightly touched on areas of high deprivation being targeted. I do not know if any Committee member has a more deprived constituency than Glasgow East. I reflect on a statistic that came out of a Channel 4 documentary a number of years ago. It suggested that for every 100,000 people in a deprived area there are 12 betting shops, and that for every 100,000 people in a more affluent area there are five betting shops. I remember—I was a parliamentary researcher at the time —running those numbers and seeing that in my constituency, which has 70,000 people, there were in excess of 45 betting shops. In the constituency of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine there are probably fewer than five. If that does not send a message to the House about the tactics of bookmakers in targeting deprived areas, I do not know what will.
I want to look at other areas of gambling reform. We need to have a serious conversation about the role of the national lottery, because I am not convinced that the funding is necessarily pouring back into the areas where the tickets and scratch cards are bought. However, that is a different story. The liberalisation of the Gambling Act 2005 went too far, and we definitely see that in communities such as my own. However, like other Members, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea East, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde. They all pursued this cause diligently when other Members of Parliament were distracted by other issues, and they have beavered away at it.
Finally, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford. In my time in this House I do not think I have come across a more genuine or nicer person. It fills me with great sadness that it took her falling on her sword for the Government to decide that they had to take action. Although I am deeply sad that she had to resign from Government, I will go home tonight very proud that we are finally taking action for some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am very pleased to be serving under your chairmanship this evening, Ms Ryan, I think for the first time. Rarely will a statutory instrument have elicited the joy that this one will. It represents success at last for a long, hard-fought campaign. We should have succeeded years ago, and would have done were it not for the fact that the Treasury were profiting from the shameful racket to which the statutory instrument will finally put an end.
It is right, as others have said, that we give credit where it is due. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East has led the campaign as chair of the all-party parliamentary group with a unique blend of passion and warmth, and we are greatly in her debt. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting pointed out, has played an exemplary and crucial part as well.
Like others, I pay tribute to the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, who was absolutely right to resign last month when the Government tried, shamefully, to delay this change, and to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green—with whom I disagree about virtually everything—who has played a positive role in this campaign.
I also pay tribute to local authorities outside of the House. My local authority, Newham, has provided valuable support to the all-party parliamentary group on fixed odds betting terminals—the one local authority to do so. I pay tribute to the current Mayor of Newham, Rokhsana Fiaz, and to her long-serving predecessor, Sir Robin Wales. I also pay tribute to Christian Action Research and Education, which has been a consistent supporter, with Newham Council, of the APPG.
Unfortunately, the role of some others has been lamentable. Some in the House have lobbied for the continuation of this shameful racket, which has destroyed the wellbeing of so many families. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should be ashamed of himself for apparently caving in to the lobbying. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport also behaved lamentably in failing to support his Minister, who was forced to resign,.
Ministers missed the chance to act on the growing menace of FOBTs five years ago, in the 2013 triennial review. Five years ago next month, we had a debate in the Chamber, which made the scale of the menace crystal clear. I reported in my speech—my constituency has a lot in common with that of the—that at that time in East Ham, on High Street North we had 14 betting shops open from 7.30 am to 10 pm, each with just one member of staff.
I quoted a former Paddy Power manager, who told me of families and businesses ruined while he was managing a shop, and of students who gambled away their student loans. He estimated that on a typical day in any Paddy Power shop with four fixed odds betting terminals, as they all have, one could meet half a dozen people whose lives had been destroyed by their addiction to these vile machines. A big use of the terminals has been to launder the proceeds of drug crime, giving criminals an apparently legitimate source for their cash. They are in those shops day in and day out.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is right to say that it is not just a case of lives ruined; in some cases lives are lost, because of the amount of suicides. That needs to go on the record as well.
Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A fair number of people, I am afraid, literally have blood on their hands through what has happened.
Often, punters losing huge sums would smash up terminals in the shop in anger, but the one member of staff there was instructed not to call the police, so that the incident would not feature in the crime statistics. Some of the shops act as honey pots for drunken louts intimidating decent shoppers who pass by. We were warned in the course of this campaign that if it succeeded in reducing the maximum stake to £2, the danger was that the number of betting shops could be halved. I must say, if the number of betting shops in East Ham falls by only 50%, I shall be very disappointed. I hope we will see a much larger reduction than that.
These vile machines have been cynically fostered by shameless, irresponsible conglomerates in the poorest communities, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East has rightly pointed out, destroying hard-working families and, on occasions, lives—the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire is right about that. They are a magnet for crime. They launder the proceeds of crime. They are a tawdry and soulless presence on high streets such as the one I represent, driving decent shops away and repelling family shoppers.
How can it have taken five years from the time of that debate, which made the extent of the damage so clear, to bring about this statutory instrument? So much money has been made by the betting companies that they have been able to employ armies of unscrupulous lobbyists and lawyers, and—let us be honest—sold-out former police officers, to give evidence for them from time to time. Of course, the Treasury has been among the principal beneficiaries of this vile trade.
Having spread blame around the place, I want to recognise that—unwittingly, at the time—I bear some personal responsibility for what has happened. From 1999 to 2001, I was the Treasury Minister responsible for betting duty. I introduced a series of reforms to betting duty designed to recognise the fact that gambling was moving online. Indeed, there was a real worry, which to some extent has been fulfilled but not as far as it might have been, that the online betting companies were also going to move offshore.
With the reform package that we introduced, part of its aim was to make low-margin betting products viable. I did not know then about fixed odds betting terminals, but I remember asking industry representatives—I particularly recall a conversation with somebody from Ladbrokes—whether the industry would use this change and behave responsibly. Looking me in the eye, that individual assured me that it would.
Rarely have I been so badly misled. The industry has been utterly irresponsible in the way that it has behaved with these terminals. The vast sums that it has raked in have completely blinded people to the ruin that it has caused. The Association of British Bookmakers, with which I worked in that period at the Treasury, has behaved shamefully, and industry leaders, who comport themselves as respectable businessmen, should hang their heads in shame for the lives they have destroyed in their pursuit of profit.
The Minister said that only those showing social responsibility would be able to take part in this industry. The industry has shown zero social responsibility; it has not even shown morality, let alone social responsibility. Let nobody try to pretend otherwise, because I am afraid that nobody involved in this vile trade knows anything of social responsibility. They have been completely blinded by the enormous sums they have been able to make.
I am absolutely delighted that we have finally got the chance to vote for this statutory instrument, but let us never forget the lessons that must be learned from this sorry and shameful saga.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Ms Ryan, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time.
I rise to speak as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on racing and bloodstock industries; I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that regard.
I pay tribute to the speeches that we have heard, particularly those from the Front Bench, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting. Her work on this issue, along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East, has shone an important light on various aspects of the gambling industry that Parliament needs to look at. However, I am afraid that I want to raise some issues, primarily in relation to racing and the impact that these changes could have on it.
First, I will say very clearly that problem gambling is a curse. It is one of the worst afflictions I have seen, not only as a Member of Parliament in the cases of my own constituents, but personally, with friends and family, from the community I live in now in St Helens to the community that I come from, in Northern Ireland.
We need to focus very strongly on treating the addiction and while I welcome any moves to tackle problem gambling, all I would say about fixed odds betting terminals is that, first, as a punter I do not like them, I have never played them and I cannot see the attraction at all for anyone. However, we need to be careful in this victory lap of virtue— not to be too flippant about it—that we do not see this change as the panacea to all of the ills.
Although I think that a stake reduction was inevitable due to both public pressure and the comparison with other machines in places such as arcades and casinos, I will just note that the Gambling Commission itself said the stake should be reduced to £30, and I wonder whether the Minister would explain why she felt it necessary to reduce the stake further to £2.
Let me say something about gambling, I have a love-hate relationship with the bookies: I love taking money off them, and I hate losing to them. That is the adversarial nature of being a punter and enjoying a bet on the football or the horses on a Saturday, or occasionally—and I hope that Mrs McGinn is not viewing this—taking an hour on a Friday afternoon before or after a surgery to nip into the bookies and watch the racing on the high street.
I have huge respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham and the work he has done. I fear that, while we have a shared Christian faith, my Irish Catholicism is coming out in my contribution to the debate, as his evangelical Protestantism comes out in his. I would just say to him gently that he needs to be careful when he talks about decency—decent shoppers and decent people. The single mum who does a few hours part time to supplement her income, by working in a bookies in Newton-le-Willows, where I live, is far from indecent. The older men who have been widowed, who go into the bookies of a Tuesday or Wednesday morning, and sit and pick their horses out and drink their cup of coffee—and who are there, during the winter, for the heat—are far from indecent.
Stephen Timms
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the generous tone in which he expresses his criticism, but can I ask him about a comment that a constituent of mine put to me—someone who does a lot of gambling on horses? He said to me that he found it impossible in a lot of those shops to get a bet on a horse because the businesses are so completely taken over by these appalling machines. Horse betting is not going on there at all.
Conor McGinn
I have no reason to disbelieve my right hon. Friend’s constituent. All I would say is that in my constituency, in the bookies I go into, the machines are not played that often. I am not naive about it, and I am certainly not going to pretend that machines are not a problem, but we have heard contributions from London and from Glasgow and I think that the problem could be more prevalent in cities, where there is non-traditional gambling. I have Haydock Park racecourse in my constituency—and St Helens rugby league club. There are Liverpool and Everton, and Manchester City and Manchester United, and traditional modes of gambling. One of my concerns is that I want people to gamble on horse-racing and not what I would see as the competitor products.
Gambling on the high street is just 20% of gambling overall. As others have pointed out, we need to think about other arenas and the move away from the high street. I contend that the high street may be a safer environment for gambling because it means being with other people, including staff, in an open environment, rather than gambling online, alone at home. It is worth noting—and it will become apparent why this is important for racing—that the number of betting shops on the high street has fallen by 150 in the past six months, and there are fewer of them on the high street than at any time since the 1970s. It is interesting to think that at that time there were only the dogs, horses and football to gamble on.
David Linden
I am a Baptist and do not want to get into the middle of a Catholic-Protestant argument, but in my constituency, where the levels of digital exclusion are still very high, it is still betting shops that are the problem. I have many constituents who have never touched a computer; that is the reality in 2018. However, in Baillieston Main Street there are three betting shops lined up next to each other, and pretty much every week the council gets planning applications for more of them. We need to be slightly more mindful of the issue of digital exclusion.
Conor McGinn
The hon. Gentleman’s substantive point is a fair one. As to his introductory point, he is, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East, probably best staying out of matters of religious nuance in this regard—certainly when it comes to football.
My final point about the effect of the regulations on the gambling industry and high street bookies is that 53,000 people work in the industry and the Association of British Bookmakers tells me that more than 20,000 stand to lose their jobs. I have no reason to disbelieve that, but more conservative estimates put it at 14,000 or 15,000. Although it is right to say that many of these shops are in the most deprived communities and that people with gambling addictions can be from poorer backgrounds, it is also right to say that many of the people who work in those places are from poorer backgrounds, too. I would like to hear from the Minister what support and retraining can be given to people who lose their jobs, and what figures, if any, her Department has on that.
A lot of people conflate racing and gambling. They are not the same, but they have a unique relationship. Horse-racing is the second highest attended sport in the country, and it is worth £3.5 billion to the British economy. As I mentioned, I chair the all-party group on racing and bloodstock industries, and Haydock Park racecourse is in my constituency. A key element of horse-racing’s success and the wider public’s affection for it is its relationship with betting—having a flutter on the grand national is a national institution. Having a bet on the horses is a national pastime.
It is justifiable to ask those who campaigned for a stake reduction or the eradication of these machines what their attitude is to other forms of gambling. I fear that some of the discourse we have heard is a Trojan horse intended to get rid of gambling altogether. Clearly, that would be hugely detrimental to horse-racing and many other sports, too. The deep connections between racing and betting mean that changes such as this change to stakes may have unintended consequences for British racing—the British Horseracing Authority estimates that it may have a £50 million impact on its annual income.
It is worth saying, for the uninitiated, that racing and gambling have been at loggerheads over issues such as the levy for many years. Racing does not come at this issue as a cheerleader for the gambling industry. It will support the industry when it benefits and develops horse-racing, but it certainly will not turn a blind eye to problem gambling or act as a cheerleader for the industry without caveat. I think I speak on behalf of British racing when I say that it supports the ambitions of the Government and everyone across the House to tackle problem gambling, but there are significant concerns about the impact of these changes. That is not just because today one of the major racecourse owners announced a reduction in prizes for 3,000 races—some of its courses are small ones that may have become unviable—but because the money the sport receives from media rights and from betting shops through the horse-racing levy is used to fund equine welfare advancements, support for participants, including stable staff, and work on integrity in the sport.
The Government provided clear assurances to British racing. The Department’s letter to the British Horseracing Authority stated:
“We understand that the Government’s decision on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals is not at all straightforward for the horseracing industry, and we want to work very closely with you to mitigate any risks.”
It also mentioned the establishment of a forum to bring together betting and racing. I wonder whether the Minister has any comments to make about progress on setting that up.
I was provided directly with an assurance by the Minister’s predecessor, to whom I pay tribute for her work on a range of issues, but particularly for her support for horse-racing. She told me on the day of the announcement that the Government
“continue to support horseracing first and foremost”.
Now we are four months from the changes being enacted, will the Minister provide an update on the discussions she and her colleagues are having with British racing on mitigating the impact of the changes? What are their plans to ensure that the racing industry is not damaged by the changes? I speak unashamedly in strong support of British horse-racing because of the economic contribution it makes, its value in our society and the racecourse in my constituency. I will continue to do so.
Let me end by saying this. It might be an old-fashioned attitude, but I believe that at the end of the week, a working-class man or woman deserves a pint if they want one, should be able to have a bet on the Lotto, the gee-gees or the football, and can, if they want, have a fish supper. All I would say is that we need to be careful that paternalistic conservatism and patrician socialism do not become too deterministic in their view of working-class people or too dictatorial in telling working-class people how to spend their money, sure in the knowledge that protecting people from the worst excesses of pints, gambling or junk food is our duty. It is to let people, provided they pay their taxes, spend the money they earn however they want.
Mims Davies
I thank hon. Members for their contributions in this very important debate and for their support. The debate on B2 machines has brought much consensus about the harm that they can do to individuals and communities. As we heard from the hon. Member for St Helens North, that may obscure the fact that many millions of people in this country enjoy gambling safely and responsibly.
Allow me to turn to some of comments; I am aware there is much consensus in the room but I am happy to respond to questions. I want to make absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman that we as a Government are not anti-gambling. We want horse-racing to prosper. I have been due to meet the all-party parliamentary racing and bloodstock industries group and I hope that meeting comes soon. It is right that we should be socially responsible and act when there is evidence of harm. I understand the concerns about the racing industry. If it becomes apparent in the gambling review that stake limits cause significant market changes, we committed to consider bringing forward the timing of the review of any levy arrangements. We can continue to converse about that.
Hon. Members asked why the Government reduced the £30 limit to £2. As I said in my opening remarks, the Gambling Commission advised that stake limits should be reduced to between £2 and £30, with a further decrease being a matter for the Government. Having considered all the evidence, the Government concluded that £2 was the most likely figure at which the greatest percentage of problem gamblers—the most vulnerable— would be most protected. If the figure remained higher— £5 or £10—the high session losses would continue. We will continue to monitor the impact of that on horse-racing.
On the comments about the Association of British Bookmakers, it shared estimates with us, which we looked at closely, but there is considerable uncertainty about the figures. Some operators have told us that they will not make many redundancies off the back of this move. They have had between nine and 12 months to prepare. I hope that allays the concerns that we are not looking at the industry as a whole.
I thank the hon. Member for Tooting for her kind remarks; she said that this is a meaningful gambling reform. I have met the charities Gambling with Lives and GambleAware in the last month. I note her concerns about the compulsory levy, the issue of radio, and credit card spending. I held a tech and gambling roundtable with the Digital Minister, with all industry experts, including banks, to ensure that as we act to make this a responsible industry, we listen to all the experts. I am very keen to keep that conversation going. The hon. Lady rightly asked why this took so long; the Government are committed to evidence-based decisions. They will continue to make appropriate reviews of all evidence before making decisions. There is a lot in this space and it is right that we consider all the evidence.
On credit cards, the Gambling Commission is looking at many issues outlined in the gambling review. That includes affordability checks, age verification and perhaps the use of debit cards. That was also raised in the tech roundtable and we are looking at it all. We need to have an open conversation about what responsible gambling looks like, in order to identify harm. In this role, I recognise that there is not a clear definition between what is responsible, enjoyable and fun and what is a problem. All that needs to be looked at.
The hon. Lady raised loot boxes. We are aware of concerns that they could encourage gambling-like behaviour. We will continue to look very closely at any evidence. We are committed—I am committed—to ensuring that children’s vulnerability and inexperience are not exploited by aggressive commercial practices. I welcome the fact that the gambling industry is looking at labelling for games and will look at warning opportunities for in-app purchases. The Gambling Commission is looking at reviewing how we can continue to strengthen that age verification and address the deposit issues, and I have made some suggestions. I have been working with the Secretary of State and there will be further announcements.
I welcome the kind remarks from the hon. Member for Glasgow East about my predecessor, and note his comments and concerns about scratchcards. As we look at the fourth licence for the national lottery, which will commence next year, we should look at the issue of sales in deprived areas and also look at the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds. We have seen no evidence on that question, but decisions will be made next year on the start of the fourth licence. While the distribution is done by arm’s length distributors, I have already raised the question with Camelot and distributors, and I am confident that the Government are rightly looking at that particular area.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire mentioned the lives lost to gambling addiction—a great shame and a terrible tragedy. Last week I met the charity Gambling with Lives and I look forward to continuing to work closely with it on that important issue. I have spoken to the charity about how we can talk about responsible gambling and ensure that we speak to our youngsters about what they may come into contact with. I am also delighted that there is a Minister for Suicide Prevention in the Department of Health and Social Care and I am committed to working with her. I believe that, alongside her Department and the Department for Education, we can all do better in pursuing a socially responsible industry, one that thrives but also works with Government, so that we act when we need to protect.
As I said earlier, the publication of the gambling review did not mark the end of Government action. We will always act where there is evidence of harm and we will keep issues under review. We have a strong industry regulator with a core responsibility to license and regulate gambling, to keep it fair, safe and free from crime. We will also work with colleagues from other Departments to improve the links between gambling treatment and other services. If I were not here today taking this legislation through, I would have been with the Gambling Commission in Birmingham.
We must achieve the right balance. We must be able to work with operators to make early interventions before harm occurs. I want to see rapid and continued progress in that area. We can use tech for good. Achieving the balance between industry growth and socially responsible business must be a joint effort, with central Government, regulators, local councillors, gambling companies, campaign groups, charities and finally individuals all playing their part.
As we have discussed, the B2 gaming machines are an outlier in the world of high street gambling because of the speed with which so much money can be lost. There has been extensive support in the responses to the Government’s consultation for a significant reduction in the B2 stakes; many hon. Members rightly came in to support the Government’s decision in May, and I am delighted with the support we have had today. By reducing the B2 stakes to £2 we can help to reduce gambling-related harm and prevent extreme losses by those who can least afford it. This is an important change and we have a chance to make a real difference in the lives of our vulnerable people and constituents. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Gaming Machine (Miscellaneous Amendments and Revocation) Regulations 2018.
Ministerial Corrections
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Work and Pensions
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Guy Opperman
Those affected by the 1995 Act changes were sent letters informing them of the change to their state pension age between 2009 and 2011, with letters sent to 1.2 million women. Those affected by the Pensions Act 2011 changes were sent letters between January 2012 and November 2013, which involved sending over 5 million letters with an accompanying leaflet. [Official Report, 8 February 2018, Vol. 635, c. 1693.]
Letter of correction from Guy Opperman:
An error has been identified in my closing speech.
The correct information should have been:
Guy Opperman
Those affected by the 1995 Act changes were sent letters informing them of the change to their state pension age between 2009 and 2011, with letters sent to 1.2 million women. Those affected by the Pensions Act 2011 changes were sent letters between January 2012 and November 2013, which involved sending over 5 million letters. Both lots of letters had appropriate supporting information.
State Pension: Women born in the 1950s
The following is an extract from the Westminster Hall debate on State Pension: Women born in the 1950s, on 22 November 2018.
Guy Opperman
Cohort life expectancy at birth in Scotland is currently 87 for men and 90 for women, and cohort life expectancy at age 65 in Scotland is currently 19 years for men and 21 years for women. [Official Report, 22 November 2018, Vol. 649, c. 425WH.]
Letter of correction from Guy Opperman:
An error has been identified in my closing speech.
The correct information should have been:
Guy Opperman
Cohort life expectancy at birth in Scotland is currently 88 for men and 90 for women, and cohort life expectancy at age 65 in Scotland is currently 19 years for men and 21 years for women.
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kelly Tolhurst
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, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 5 December 2018; c. 9.]
Letter of correction from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst):
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the Committee:
The correct response should have been:
Kelly Tolhurst
We have also assessed—working with the CMA, obviously—that the CMA might have to deal with between 30 and 50 extra merger cases over a year.
Petition
Women affected by changes to the state pension age
Fisheries Bill (Ninth sitting)
Monday 17th December 2018
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 View all Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 December 2018 - (17 Dec 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I welcome colleagues to a potentially full Monday.
Clause 23
Discard prevention charging schemes
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 23, page 13, line 28, at end insert—
“(c) where monies raised through a charging scheme are spent.”
To bring transparency over use of money raised through a charging scheme, and to allow for it to be argued for a revenue to be ringfenced to be spent on research and investment in the industry.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 104, in clause 23, page 14, line 7, at end insert—
“(8) The Secretary of State must publish a report every year that reviews the charging scheme. This review will include—
(a) the amount of revenue raised through the scheme, and
(b) the use of revenue raised through the scheme.”
To require the Secretary of State to publish an annual review of the charging scheme.
Mr Carmichael
It is a pleasure to be back here under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. If you will indulge me, I will say a brief word about the conduct of the Committee’s business, which has been exemplary so far. We have managed to get through a lot of business. Nobody has taken too long, but we have managed a thorough exploration of the issues. You might be aware, Mr Hanson, that this week is significant for fishing communities, coinciding as it does with the advent of the annual December Fisheries Council in Brussels. Many of us here represent fishing communities and we know the importance of having the best possible representation at the highest possible level from our own Government. It is a fairly common view within our communities that the Minister should be there in attendance if possible. We therefore wish to finish the business of the Committee tonight if possible. Obviously, the matter is of long-term importance, but, for the communities that we represent, what happens in Brussels in the next day or two will be significant.
The Chair
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but it is a matter for every member of the Committee to determine when we complete our business. Sittings are planned until Wednesday, but if Members restrain themselves, completing business tonight could be achieved.
Mr Carmichael
Indeed, Mr Hanson. I will simply say this: not only from the point of view of those of us who represent fishing communities, but from the point of view of Parliament as a whole, it will do no harm for MPs to be seen at least in this regard as behaving like mature grown-ups.
The Committee will be aware that clause 23 seeks to introduce a discard prevention charging scheme for those who, for whatever reason, have taken over-quota fish. The amendments try to add a little more focus to that. Amendment 103 allows for the money taken from these finds to be ring-fenced and a specific purpose for the money to be identified. The specific purpose that I have in mind relates to fisheries management, conservation, and perhaps maritime or marine environmental schemes—measures of that sort. Given the general nature of the Bill, and with a view to the durability of the legislation, we have not sought to tie the hands of any future Minister with regard to what that specific purpose might ultimately be. It is a fairly novel approach to a scheme of this sort, but it is not without precedent.
The precedent that springs most readily to mind is the aggregates levy, which allowed money to be ring-fenced for spending in communities situated next to aggregate excavation quarries because they were in some way affected by the industry. It would be a very good signal to send, and such a measure would bring about a bit of confidence in the industry itself with regard to how the discard prevention charging scheme is administered.
Amendment 104 would make provision for an annual review to account for the money raised and how it has been spent. That would follow on naturally from amendment 103—if the Committee were minded to incorporate such a measure. It is an important point, but not one that at this stage, subject to what I might hear from the Minster, I intend to push to a vote.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is good to see everyone back here. I think we all agree that discards should be prevented, and we all want more sustainable forms of fishing, but the discard ban that will kick in on 1 January worries fishers from Cornwall and Plymouth to Peterhead and Fraserburgh. They worry that their boats will be tied up because the ban will prevent them from going to sea.
We need a system that prevents discards and means fish caught without a quota are not wasted, chucked overboard or discarded. We heard in our evidence sessions from Aaron Brown of Fishing for Leave, who feels there are major problems with this part of the Bill. Helen McLachlan, and Debbie Crockard of the Marine Conservation Society, referred to the uncertainty about the consequences—intended and, importantly, unintended —of the scheme. Even Dr O’Brien did not entirely convince us that he knew how the scheme would work.
The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland seem entirely sensible, but we are not convinced that the Government have suddenly found the right answer. It undermines this enabling Bill to set out the scheme in such detail without any scope for piloting or consultation to see what works and to develop the detail of the scheme in collaboration with fishers and marine conservation organisations.
I therefore would be grateful if the Minister answered a few questions about this part of the Bill. Where did the basis for the scheme come from? Are there any precedents in other countries? What evidence did the Department draw on when designing the scheme? What industry views were sought, what opinions were given, and how were they taken into account? Why does the Department consider that it is not appropriate to conduct a pilot or trial to test the key elements of the scheme before it is enshrined in primary legislation? Under the scheme, what will happen to the fish that are landed? How will the Department avoid requiring fishers to go to and from harbour to land fish, thereby increasing their carbon footprint?
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
It is, perhaps, pertinent that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the December Council, since it will be dominated by the issue of choke species and making the discard ban work in practice. I can briefly reassure him that I joined our delegation by conference call at eight this morning and again at two, and I plan to be on the first train out there tomorrow, when the substantive negotiations will take place. In the meantime, my noble Friend Lord Gardiner is covering proceedings.
We looked at the idea of a discard prevention charging scheme because we all know, as we approach the final year of the landing obligation, that there are challenges with making it work as far as choke species are concerned. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, asked whether there is precedent for such a scheme. Iceland and New Zealand both have similar schemes, with a kind of overage charge.
I was attracted to that idea because it is rather similar to what we did when we first introduced dairy quotas. Initially, if a farmer went over his quota for milk production, he had to pour the milk down the drain—he could not sell it at all. The super levy was then developed, which meant he could sell it but there would be no economic value to him for producing it. We seek to do something similar here. We will establish a national reserve of quota to underpin the discard prevention charge. Rather than coming up with lots of complex rules, like we have now, to try to find exemptions or other de minimis ways of managing the discard ban, we want to ensure that there is no financial incentive for fishermen to target those fish. However, we do not want to prevent them from landing those fish should they run into stocks they had sought to avoid.
The shadow Minister also asked about consultation. This idea was set out in some detail in our White Paper. Since the White Paper was published, my officials have travelled the country—they have visited fishing communities from Newlyn right up to the north of Scotland—to talk to the industry about the plans we have outlined. I think it is fair to say that the industry recognises that there are many challenges with making the discard ban and the landing obligation work in practice as well as in theory. That is why it is open to this approach, which has a proven track record in some countries.
Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned that we had put the scheme in the Bill without having a pilot or any detailed consultation. I reassure him that clause 23(1) is clear that this will be done through regulations. Before we lay those regulations, we absolutely will consult thoroughly with the industry to ensure that we get the scheme design right. I also reassure him that it is absolutely my intention that we will pilot the scheme before rolling it out nationally. It is obviously quite an important policy and will be quite an important departure from the scheme we have now, and we want to make sure that we have the design right. I hope that, having given that reassurance, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will not feel the need to press the amendments to a vote.
Mr Carmichael
I am not entirely sure that the Minister embraced the substance of the amendments—that the money raised by this scheme could be ring-fenced, and that there should be some reporting mechanism or accountability for it. I am not trying to be difficult. Perhaps the Minister would like to intervene on me?
George Eustice
I did indeed miss out a part of my notes. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are absolutely committed to transparency, and that existing Treasury rules require us to publish this information. Under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, the Treasury has already directed the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to prepare, for each financial year, consolidated resource accounts detailing the resources acquired, held or disposed of, and the Department’s use of resources during the year. If the intention behind the amendment is that the money should be ring-fenced for conservation purposes, that is set out in clause 27(3)(c).
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful intervention. I and others strongly suspected that the Treasury would be the least fond of this proposal. The Minister has confirmed those suspicions. However, that is not an unreasonable explanation, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
I think we covered the key issues of the clause when I set out the purpose and the thinking behind the charging scheme.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Meaning of “chargeable person” and “unauthorised catch of sea fish”
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 94, in clause 24, page 14, line 17, after “Organisation” insert
“or an Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 95, in clause 24, page 14, line 23, after “Organisation” insert
“or an Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority”.
Amendment 96, in clause 24, page 14, line 26, after “Organisation” insert
“or an Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority”.
Amendment 99, in clause 29, page 17, line 37, after “MMO” insert
“or on the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities”.
Amendment 100, in clause 29, page 17, line 38, after “MMO” insert
“or on the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities.”.
Amendment 101, in clause 29, page 17, line 39, after “power of” insert “either”.
Amendment 102, in clause 29, page 17, line 39, after “MMO” insert
“or the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities”.
Peter Aldous
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. The amendments are more of the probing variety and are not quite as intimidating and long as they might appear. They relate to clauses 24 and 29, which concern the charging arrangements for the administration of the disposal of English fishing opportunities.
I seek to address three issues through this group of amendments. First, I would add to the marine functions for which charges can be made. Secondly, I would expand the provisions to allow inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, not only marine management organisations, to recoup costs. Thirdly, while the level of charges is not likely to be great, I think it would be appropriate, wherever possible, to direct these funds to preserving English fisheries for future generations.
This particular group of amendments would allow IFCAs, not only the MMO, to recoup costs. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on whether it is appropriate to add IFCAs to the clause. If he does not think that it is, I seek his assurance as to why.
Luke Pollard
I will be brief. The hon. Member for Waveney raises some good points. I asked for further clarity on the role of IFCAs previously, because it seems to be an area that is missing from large parts of the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister responds to that.
George Eustice
To reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, we have not included IFCAs in the clause in the way that his amendments suggest, in common with similar amendments that he has tabled, because IFCAs do not have any role in quota management. It is not appropriate for them to be covered by this clause, which is explicitly in relation to the discard prevention charge.
IFCAs do not carry out the functions for which we want the MMO to charge. In essence, the funding mechanisms for IFCAs are also different from the MMO. IFCAs are funded by a levy charged to their sponsoring local authorities. They receive around £8.7 million for that. Local authorities have a legal duty to pay the levy. Recovered courts costs awarded from successful prosecutions also appear as revenues. IFCAs are encouraged to explore ways of supplementing their income by creating commercial revenues—through survey work, for example. Their funding model is very different. They have no role in quota management and it is not appropriate to bring them within the scope of these clauses.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification of that issue, particularly that IFCAs do not have a role in quota management and that they have alternative funding arrangements. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
The purpose of the clause is simply to provide the meaning of “chargeable person” and “unauthorised catch at sea fish” in respect of the discard prevention charging scheme. Subsection (1) provides that the chargeable persons under a scheme must be holders of English sea fishing licences or producer organisations that have at least one member that is an English sea fishing licence holder. Producer organisations are included as chargeable persons as they frequently manage quota on behalf of their members and distribute quota between the members. Subsection (2) gives the meaning of unauthorised catch of sea fish; unauthorised catch means catch in excess of the amount authorised by the MMO for that vessel or producer. Subsection (3) provides flexibility so that a scheme may determine what catch is to be deemed as authorised by the MMO.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Catches subject to a charge ignored for certain regulatory purposes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
Briefly, the sole purpose of this clause is to ensure that fishermen are not further penalised for processing unauthorised catch if they have complied with the discard prevention charging scheme. The clause provides that where a charge is payable under the scheme, the scheme may provide that the fishing activity that led to the charge may be ignored in determining whether there has been a breach of a licence requirement. That means that, under the scheme, if a charge is paid as required for an unauthorised catch, no further action will be taken.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Charge collectors
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
The purpose of this clause is simply to enable the Secretary of State, when setting up a charging scheme, to determine the functions of a charge collector, together with certain details such as terms of appointment and termination of the charge collector. Subsection (1) states that the Secretary of State can appoint a charge collector to administer the scheme and to specify the terms and termination of their appointment and functions they will carry out. Subsection (2) details the nature of the functions that may be conferred on the charge collector. Subsection (3) provides that the scheme may allow for duties to be placed on a charge collector after their appointment has been terminated. Subsection (4) allows a scheme to contain provision about appeals against decisions of charge collectors. Subsection (5) provides for the possibility that any expenditure incurred by the charge collector when exercising their functions can be recovered.
Mr Carmichael
Can the Minister confirm that, although these provisions exist, they are permissive and it would remain possible for Government Departments to carry out those functions?
George Eustice
Yes, that is absolutely the case. Indeed, it is likely to be the case that the Marine Management Organisation would perform those functions on behalf of the Government. The clause simply provides the opportunity for others to be involved, should that be required.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Discard prevention charging schemes: supplementary provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
Clause 27 is about supplementary provisions. It includes provisions for a discard prevention charging scheme to include provisions for unpaid charges to be recovered as a debt, for masters of fishing boats to be jointly liable with licence holders for charge payments, and for how charge collectors must manage the receipt of charges. It also allows the Secretary of State to exercise discretion in the functioning of the scheme and to delegate any of their functions under the scheme. The clause provides necessary detail on the scheme to ensure its proper functioning.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for setting that out. I have a question for him on this scheme, in relation to equal access and shared access to waters. He is setting out a scheme for English fisheries, but could he set out what happens in the event of a fishing boat leaving English waters and travelling through to Scottish waters, for instance, and there being discards en route at some location between? Is there a way of meshing this together perfectly with what happens with a Scottish discard scheme to ensure that there are no loopholes because of the transition between two national fisheries areas?
George Eustice
The shadow Minister makes an important point. As I have said all along, this Bill tries to sit within our somewhat complex devolution settlement. I will make two points. First, Scotland is facing exactly the same challenges that we in England are facing, with regard to making the discard ban work in practice as well as in theory. From discussions with officials, I am aware that the Scottish Government are interested in looking at a similar scheme for fishermen in Scotland. It may be that this is something we can work on together across the UK.
Secondly, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about how we would deal with catches, some of which might have been caught in Scotland and some of which might have been caught in England, we have quite a detailed system of catch reporting. They have to log catches. We have vessel monitoring systems so that we know where vessels are catching fish. We have trained operators in our control room in Newcastle who monitor fishing patterns and can identify suspicious behaviour, such as a fishing vessel fishing in one area and then driving around to pretend it has fished in another, and we have ways of reconciling fishermen’s landing records with their catch records to ensure that we can manage this as an England-only scheme, should that be necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Financial assistance: powers of Secretary of State
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 108, in clause 28, page 16, line 25, at end insert—
“(f) the gathering of scientific data relating to fishing, including but not limited to carrying out stock assessments, vessel monitoring and recording fishing catches.”
This amendment would enable financial assistance to be provided for scientific data collection.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 98, in clause 29, page 17, line 21, at end insert—
“(e) commissioning scientific research to support—
(i) fish stock management, food security and biodiversity, and
(ii) the development of low impact fishing techniques.
(f) any other administrative function relating to fisheries management.”
Amendment 109, in clause 31, page 18, line 24, at end insert—
“(d) the gathering of scientific data to inform management of fish stocks.”
This amendment would add scientific data collection to the conservation purpose for which Clause 31 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations.
New clause 21—Proceeds of charges and fees—
“(none) Any proceeds or charges received by the Secretary of State, the Marine Management Organisation or any Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority pursuant to sections 22, 23 or 29(3) shall be used to preserve the English fishery for future generations, which shall include—
(a) the commissioning of scientific research to support effective stock management and biodiversity;
(b) the commissioning of scientific or technical research into, and the development of, low impact fishing techniques;
(c) the administrative functions relating to fisheries management of the Secretary of State, the Marine Management Organisation and the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities; and
(d) such other objectives as may be set out in a JFS or SSFS.”
Luke Pollard
Amendment 108 would make it possible to provide funding for data collection, scientific research and better vessel monitoring. Just about everyone in this debate supports better data. Fishers would like the opportunity to prove that they are behaving sustainably and that there are more fish in the water than the scientists say. It would be money well spent, given the extra potential revenue if fisheries were recovered to their optimum economic output.
UK seas have historically been an abundant source of food, income and employment, but they are failing to meet their full potential. Government figures show that two thirds of our main commercial fish stocks are depleted, overfished or at risk of being depleted, or their status is unknown. With better scientific understanding of our fish stocks and the impact of fishing, fisheries management would be more effective, helping stocks to recover and our marine ecosystem to flourish.
Funding data collection makes good economic sense because the cost of stock assessments is very reasonable. Sustain calculates an initial cost of £190 million and then £19 million annually to assess all deficient stocks. Conservative estimates suggest that would catch £150 million more fish in the UK if all stocks were managed at their economic optimum. Better data could allow management to be more precise and responsive. It could give fishers the evidence that they argue for, for increased catches where sustainability is proven.
Data deficiency is a significant issue for the UK fishing fleet. Poor data is affecting the management of commercial opportunities for the most important species in the UK. As we heard in our evidence sessions, data deficiency is one of the main reasons why much of the fish caught in UK waters cannot be marketed as sustainable. For fishing to be sustainable there must be sufficient understanding of the population of the targeted species, and of the impact of fishing and/or the status of the sea floor ecosystems. Without that data, boats can be considered ineligible for Marine Stewardship Council certification, or receive a lower rating on the Marine Conservation Society’s “Good Fish Guide”. With better data, more UK fisheries would be eligible for sustainability certification, or would receive a better rating from the MCS. That would allow them access to the best markets for fish, including UK public sector catering.
In a recent report, Sustain found that UK fisheries are not verifiably sustainable and are losing out on millions of pounds’-worth of business, because companies look abroad for fish that meet their sustainable buying policies. Data deficiency particularly disadvantages small-scale fleets—80% of the stocks targeted by the large industrial fleet have stock assessments, whereas only 12% of those targeted by small-scale English fleets have adequate data to achieve sustainability certification. It is unfair on smaller boats if, even when they fish sustainably, they are unable to prove it. That is why amendment 108 would include the gathering of scientific data on fishing in the key provisions of the Bill. Amendment 109 would amend clause 31 to make
“the gathering of scientific data to inform management of fish stocks”
an additional conservation purpose under the Bill. So data collection and data deficiency would be dealt with in those two separate areas.
Peter Aldous
I want to speak to amendment 98 and new clause 21. The amendment would make two additions to the list of what are called “relevant marine functions”, for which charges can be made. The first addition, following on from the remarks of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, would be the commissioning of
“scientific research to support…fish stock management, food security and biodiversity”.
Improving our science is very important. Secondly, the amendment would add a general
“administrative function relating to fisheries management”.
New clause 21 sets out three uses for which the proceeds could be used: the commissioning of scientific research to support effective stock management and biodiversity; the commissioning of scientific research into the development of low-impact fishing techniques; and
“the administrative functions relating to fisheries management of the Secretary of State, the Marine Management Organisation and the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities”.
It is important to incentivise the collection of scientific data and research so as to support fish stock management and biodiversity. Fisheries science and accurate data are essential, as things move forward, to put fisheries management on to an effective footing that will be sustainable in the long term. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans for that.
George Eustice
I understand that the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, on financial assistance, and those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, relating to the power to impose charges, have at their heart a concern that we need better quality scientific data. We have discussed that on a number of occasions. I broadly agree. We have made some good progress; stocks that were of data-limited status have moved on to have full stock assessments. There is undoubtedly further to go.
DEFRA already pays the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science to gather the data as part of its service level agreement. The issue is whether there is a need for clause 28 to include an additional purpose in relation to science. Our view is that there is not, for a number of reasons. First, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, which is an EU fund, does indeed have a category for enforcement and science. That is made available to national Governments for doing the relevant work. Clearly, in an era where we are funding national Government activities directly from the Treasury we do not need a separate provision in the way that we do in the EMFF.
Our view is therefore that future grants to replace the EMFF should be directed at the fishing industry and aquaculture, to support those areas, and that the funding for the activities of CEFAS and science should come from the Government, and the powers to do that obviously already exist through the normal channels—the spending review processes and the funding that we make available to CEFAS through our service-level agreement with it.
Luke Pollard
I must say that I am troubled by a number of things that the Minister has said in his response. Given that the Government have not yet committed to replacing every single penny within the EMFF funding for our coastal communities, I do not think that we should base opposition to this amendment on trust that Treasury Ministers will side with us when it comes to delivering out the pennies because, quite simply, I do not trust the Treasury to fund our fishery science sufficiently on this issue. That is why an amendment that would provide for the Secretary of State to give factual assistance on the basis of supporting science is an absolutely key part of this process, because it would send a message about the tone and clarity that the Government are seeking to create that the funding of fishery science, the funding of stock levels and the funding of the ability to address data deficiency is a key priority.
We have already heard that there are a number of aspects to the Bill that are troubling in relation to the lack of clarity on data funding, and I have to say that I found the Minister’s reply unconvincing. I am glad that he is considering bringing elements back on Report, because clearly there is a problem here that he and his team have highlighted. I think this area is very important, so I will not withdraw the amendment.
Question proposed, That the amendment be made.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 111, in clause 28, page 16, line 25, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must conduct a consultation on exercising the power to give financial assistance under subsection (1) to promote the development of sustainable public access to recreational fishing opportunities for the fish catching sector and leisure and tourism industries, taking into account socio-economic factors.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 25—Recreational fishing—
“(1) When any provision of this Act, including provisions inserted into other Acts by this Act, requires or permits the Secretary of State to consult with any person considered appropriate, the Secretary of State must consult with persons representing the practice of recreational fishing.
(2) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual report providing an assessment of the extent to which the provisions of this Act have—
(a) promoted recreational fishing, and
(b) had economic benefits attributable to the promotion of recreational fishing by the provisions of this Act.
(3) The first report under subsection (2) shall be published no more than 12 months after this section comes into force.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on providing financial assistance for the promotion of recreational fishing, and to include representatives of recreational fishing when conducting a consultation under any other provisions of the Bill.
Luke Pollard
On Second Reading, I said that recreational fishing is entirely absent from the Bill at a meaningful level and that is not good enough. Recreational fishing is a vibrant, growing and important part of our coastal communities and needs due recognition by Ministers in the Fisheries Bill. Labour’s proposals are designed to give recreational fishing the prominence that a sector of this economic size deserves.
In the evidence session held by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Wednesday, Martin Salter from the Angling Trust talked about the vital economic link between recreational angling and coastal communities. The Bill is an opportunity to drive and create greater economic activity in our coastal communities. Mr Salter mentioned the booming recreational fishing sectors of Cape Cod and Florida, which are worth billions of dollars, as examples of what could be achieved in coastal communities in the UK. Wealth generated by recreational fishing boosts other industries such as tourism, including the bed-and-breakfast trade and all other aspects of hospitality and tourism.
Coastal communities depend on economic activity generated by the recreational fishing industry, but for recreational fishing to thrive and have a positive impact on our coastal communities, the industry needs investment, sustainable waters and healthy fish stocks. Amendment 111 would bring recreational angling within the new Government grants that will replace the European maritime and fisheries fund. The UK was allocated £190 million of EMFF funding for 2014 to 2020. It is vital that every penny from the EMFF be matched after we leave the European Union, but, sadly, Ministers have made no such commitment to date.
As well as the economic importance of recreational fishing to coastal communities, this activity plays a big part in the culture of those communities. Sea angling brings with it many social and health and wellbeing benefits. For children and young people, it is often their first experience of interacting with the natural world. The Bill must give us the ability to support recreational fishing. It could provide opportunities for young people to get involved in recreational fishing and encourage them to pursue a career or lifelong hobby in this sector. Nurturing this industry is crucial, because we know that that could lead to a renaissance of our coastal communities.
“Sea Angling 2012”, the study of recreational sea angling carried out by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, shows that total resident sea angler spending in 2012 was estimated to be £1.23 billion, equivalent to £831 million of direct spending, excluding imports and taxes. That directly supported 10,400 full-time jobs and almost £360 million of gross value added. The total economic impact was £2.1 billion of spending, supporting 23,600 full-time equivalent jobs and almost £980 million of GVA once indirect and induced effects were accounted for. That is a huge contribution to our coastal towns and cities.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling case for including recreational fishing in the Bill. Does he agree that we are only starting to scratch the surface of the economic contribution that recreational fishing could make to our economy, and does he further agree that the Government could do so much to encourage, in particular, greater tourism into this country to take advantage of its great recreational fishing opportunities, if they were to highlight the importance of that in the Bill itself?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention: he is exactly right. Indeed, this weekend I had conversations with Destination Plymouth about the new tourism marketing plan for my own city. We were talking about how the value of recreational angling and sea fishing could be further embedded as part of the tourism product for the far south-west, which would create more jobs, so he is exactly right.
Coastal communities benefit when good fishing attracts anglers. Let us not tie any Minister’s hands but explicitly lay out in the Bill that they have the power to award recreational fishing the grants it needs to grow our economy and grow the love of our marine environment.
New clause 25 also relates to the ability to provide financial assistance for recreational fishing and its importance as part of the wider development of sustainable practices in recreational fishing. According to figures from DEFRA—the Minister’s own Department—recreational fishing and sea angling are worth about £2 billion to the UK economy, generate about 20,000 jobs and support thousands of coastal businesses. Sometimes the economic benefits of the recreational sector can outweigh those of the commercial sector, but as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, it is not spoken about enough. We need to be louder and prouder about the contribution that recreational angling can make to our coastal towns.
In this Committee’s evidence sessions on the Bill, the Angling Trust rightly said that one of the “great failures” of the common fisheries policy was the failure to recognise recreational angling as a legitimate stakeholder in European fisheries. The Bill could put right that failure of the CFP. We could do that today by stating in the Bill that the UK Government recognise recreational sea angling as a direct user and legitimate stakeholder in the fisheries. That would be a win-win situation, as it would add to the very welcome news that we will have access to EMFF funding—I hope the Minister will confirm that. We need recreational fishing to be loud and proud on the face of the Bill, to send a message to the people engaged in the sector that we want that part of the economy to grow further, and that we value it.
Mr Carmichael
I agree with just about everything the hon. Gentleman has said. This is a good example of how a small measure of Government investment could have a transformative effect and bring manifold returns. Some decades ago, the Highlands and Islands Development Board installed mooring buoys throughout the highlands and islands, which allowed many yachtsmen and other sailors to enjoy that part of the countryside. It brought in a tremendous amount of income, and tourism burgeoned over the years. The same is possible for those who are trying to increase recreational angling.
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is very modest: it requires that consultation be held. It does not bind any Minister or future Minister to do anything. It is pretty clear that if we just leave this and wait for something to happen, it almost certainly never will.
George Eustice
I declare an interest: my brother is a keen angler who targets bass off the Cornish coasts, so I regularly hear from him about these issues.
Owen Smith
I am also a recreational sea angler for bass. Does the Minister agree that we could do much more for our economy in many parts of the country—not just the south-west, but off Wales and Scotland—if we did more to promote the prospect of bass angling?
George Eustice
It would be something if we could conserve bass. Indeed, that will be another important agenda item at this year’s December Council.
Owen Smith
Does the Minister agree that one of the ways in which we might conserve bass is by reserving those stocks solely for recreational angling?
George Eustice
I would not reserve them solely for recreational angling, but I have been in the vanguard of arguing for them to have a more generous bag limit than the Commission has hitherto granted.
I know that the Angling Trust has been promoting the amendment, and I am a big fan of Martin Salter. I bumped into him after the evidence session when he raised these points, and I said that I felt that he had a rather “glass half empty” view. As the shadow Minister knows, clause 28(1)(e) is absolutely explicit that we are creating powers to give financial assistance for
“the promotion or development of recreational fishing.”
That is a first. The EMFF and the European schemes have never had any provision whatever for targeted grant support for recreational angling.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Hartlepool has a much-depleted offshore fleet these days, so recreational fishing is very much in the ascendency, particularly because we have got wrecks that generate good fish stocks. Does the Minister agree that that is important for tourism?
George Eustice
Yes, I very much agree. I hail from a Cornish constituency that is surrounded by water, so recreational angling is an important tourist activity. These issues are indeed very important. I have seen estimates that put the commercial value of recreational fishing at about £2 billion. We always have to be slightly suspicious of some of these figures, but there is no doubt that it is a commercially important sector.
Amendment 111 and new clause 25 seek to achieve slightly different things. With respect to amendment 111, I do not think that it is necessary to require a consultation, since in clause 28(1)(e) we have taken—for the first time and with very good reason—a power to give grants for recreational fishing. As I have said many times, DEFRA needs no encouragement to issue consultations. We have regular consultations on all sorts of issues—I think last year we had something like 50—and sometimes only a handful of people reply. I can guarantee the Committee that before introducing any grant scheme under clause 28(1), we would consult on its design and purpose, so I do not think that it needs to be placed in statute that we must run a consultation.
Owen Smith
I have seen Mr Salter with a glass full or half full on many occasions.
George Eustice
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has; I think I have, too.
Having given an undertaking to look specifically into the possibility of making reference to recreational angling in the SSFS, where it best sits, I hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will not see the need to press his amendment.
Luke Pollard
I thank the Minister for taking recreational sea angling and fishing so comprehensively on board in his response. It is good to hear that he intends to issue a consultation before any powers under clause 28(1)(e) are used. That commitment delivers on the intent of our amendment 111, and I am pleased that he is taking on board the concern expressed by recreational fishers that they should be given greater prominence in the Bill.
With respect to new clause 25, I will look carefully at what the Minister brings back on Report. There is an opportunity to do much more on recreational fishing; if he brings back the new clause, the Bill will be the better for it. On the basis of the commitments he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Financial assistance
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
George Eustice
The Committee has already discussed the substance of the issues to which schedule 4 relates. The schedule will allow Wales and Northern Ireland to establish grant schemes after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Its provisions essentially mirror those set out in clause 28, which provide powers to introduce schemes of financial assistance for industries related to fish or fish farming, as well as for the purpose of improving the marine and aquatic environment or—as we have just discussed—promoting recreational fishing. The powers replace and broaden existing domestic funding powers, which are in the Fisheries Act 1981.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 4 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 29
Power of Marine Management Organisation to impose charges
Peter Aldous
I will speak briefly, because this amendment covers the issues that I addressed in my previous two amendments, and which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport also referred to. As far as the future funding of science is concerned, I was reasonably content with the response that the Minister provided. I look forward to seeing the further details, to which he referred, on Report. I acknowledge and take on board his explanation that it is not appropriate for IFCAs to be funded in this particular way. On that basis, I will not be moving the amendment.
The Chair
In that case we will move on to an amendment that will be moved. I call Luke Pollard potentially to move amendment 70.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 29, page 17, line 42, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
I am definitely moving the amendment, which seeks to remove the negative procedure in relation to clause 29 and replace it with the affirmative procedure. The amendment reflects concerns expressed by fishers about the increasing powers of the MMO, which is developing the ability to impose charges without sufficient accountability and scrutiny of that work.
The amendment is designed to catch the Minister’s eye so that he can reassure us that the MMO will use any powers it is given wisely, to ensure that charges are proportionate and, importantly, that before any charges are imposed, there is sufficient consultation with fishers to ensure that those charges are correct and proportionate.
Given the considerable amount of concern expressed by fishers, it is important that there is sufficient parliamentary procedure, which is why we suggest the affirmative procedure. However, if the Minister can give a good answer as to why that should not be required, I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
George Eustice
We have had a number of discussions about the use of the negative procedure. As I have pointed out before, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered the procedures for all delegated powers in the Bill and commented:
“Of the Bill’s 15 delegated powers that have a parliamentary procedure, only four are solely governed by the negative procedure, and justifiably so.”
It is usual for fees and charges imposed by arm’s length bodies to be set out in regulations made under the negative procedure. A recent example is the power of the Secretary of State to charge fees through regulations under the Ivory Bill, which will also use the negative procedure. We have considered the issue, but we think we have struck the right balance between the need for parliamentary scrutiny and the need to update MMO charges through secondary legislation.
If we were to accept this amendment and do use the affirmative procedure, every change made to the charges would have to go through an affirmative parliamentary process. We think that is excessive. We already have strict and tight Treasury guidance on when one can and cannot charge, and how one can charge for such charges that are passed on, and that is very much on a cost-recovery basis. That provision is set out in detail in other Government rules and guidance.
Luke Pollard
I invited the Minister to provide reassurance that the MMO would use the charging powers proportionately and subject to consultation. Could he say something about his approach to that?
George Eustice
I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to clause 29(7), which makes provision for consultation. I confirm that we would consult the industry before introducing such charges.
Luke Pollard
I appreciate that clarification. It is important that the Minister takes on board the concerns of fishers about the role and remit of the MMO in relation to the new powers that the Bill gives him. On the basis of the reassurance that he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Power of Northern Ireland department to impose charges
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 76, in schedule 5, page 44, line 9, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
Briefly, the amendment seeks to amend schedule 5 to provide the affirmative resolution in relation to powers given to the relevant Northern Ireland Department. I would like to invite the Minister to comment.
Importantly, in the absence of devolution to the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly at the moment, as the Assembly is not sitting, how can we ensure that there is sufficient scrutiny of those powers to the devolved Administration? In others circumstances, whether in Wales or Scotland, the powers would be given appropriate scrutiny in those devolved bodies.
George Eustice
The solution to the problem that the hon. Gentleman highlights is to get a political Administration back in Northern Ireland. We have that challenge on many fronts; this is one of the lesser challenges we face in the absence of a political Administration in Northern Ireland.
Our intention is that the Bill is built to last and that it will give us a basis and a framework with which to manage fisheries for at least the next few decades—I hope so, but obviously things change. The Bill is therefore built in the expectation that a political Administration will be back in place in Northern Ireland, as it should be. Indeed, I am sure we all hope that that might even happen before the provisions of the Bill commence.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the lack of an Administration in Northern Ireland. We all know that the solution is not to amend the Bill but to get an Administration back in Northern Ireland. Again, I point out paragraph 7 of the schedule, which gives a clear undertaking that there must be a consultation before any regulations can be introduced under the negative procedure, even for Northern Ireland.
Luke Pollard
On the basis of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
George Eustice
Briefly, the schedule allows the Northern Ireland Department to make regulations to enable it to charge for its exercising of relevant marine functions. After the regulations are laid, the Northern Ireland Department will be able to charge to ensure that the taxpayer does not have to foot the bill for expenses related to fisheries. Through the change, it is intended that the Government should neither profit at the expense of the consumer nor make a loss. It is a cost-recovery provision, which mirrors what is in the clauses that we discussed earlier for England.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 5 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 30
Sea Fish Industry Authority: fees for services provided for industry in EU
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
The Sea Fish Industry Authority—Seafish—is a levy-funded, UK-wide body set up to promote the consumption of seafood, protect the reputation of the industry and provide information, evidence and advice for decision making in the supply chain. It may provide services for persons in the sea fish industry within and outside the UK. It is required to charge in full for such services provided to those from non-EU states, but section 3(5) of the Fisheries Act 1981 prevents it from charging those from EU states more than those from the UK. The clause will remove that provision.
We are including the clause in the Bill because the power in section 8(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 may not be used to make regulations that impose or amend fees. In practice, Seafish sets out all of its charges across recovery levels, so the clause will not result in any practical change. However, it is important that no distinction is made between services provided to EU and to non-EU companies once the UK leaves the EU.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Power to make provision about fisheries, aquaculture etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
The clause will provide the Secretary of State with the powers necessary to manage our fisheries when we leave the EU and operate as an independent coastal state, enabling us to comply with the UK’s international obligations, manage our fisheries and keep pace with changes to EU law. When we leave the EU, it will be vital that the UK has measures in place to implement its international obligations and to move away from the common fisheries policy measures incorporated in retained EU law under the EU withdrawal Act.
Fisheries, and the management of the impact of fisheries on the marine environment, are dynamic, changing throughout the year. To manage fisheries effectively, we need delegated powers to be able to respond quickly to scientific advice. The CFP is due to be reviewed in the next few years. We need to ensure that the UK can introduce measures where appropriate for UK fisheries management. The clause confers regulatory updating powers on the Secretary of State. Equivalent powers are conferred on Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland; we understand that Scotland will make its own legislative arrangements in respect of the powers set out in the clause.
The powers in the clause are necessarily quite broad in scope. In recognition of that, we have introduced several constraints to limit the powers as far as possible. They must be exercised for a purpose listed in subsection (1); they can only be exercised for the matters listed in subsection (4); and they cannot create criminal offences punishable by imprisonment. I hope I have been able to explain the purpose behind the clause, to ensure that we can have a dynamic and clear ability expeditiously to make minor technical changes to the technical conservation regulations that are important in fisheries.
Luke Pollard
Notwithstanding my earlier remarks, it is good to see the word “aquaculture” making it into the Government’s Bill at this point. I make fond mention of the occasion on which the Minister decided not to take amendments because of the mention of the aquatic environment. I am sure that aquaculture and the aquatic environment will make appearances later that will highlight the error of the Minister’s ways in his earlier remarks.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Section 31: interpretation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
Briefly, the clause simply provides interpretation for certain terms related to fisheries used in clause 31. This is important to ensure that restrictions placed on the power in clause 31 are effective in limiting its scope to fisheries. It is a simple clause that deals with interpretation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Power to make provision about aquatic animal diseases
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
The shadow Minister will note that the word “aquatic” has arrived again. However, this clause is slightly different, since it relates to replacing provisions dealing with fish health in particular once we leave the EU and lose some of the powers in the European Communities Act 1972.
The clause confers delegated powers on the Secretary of State to make changes to aquatic animal health legislation, as opposed to the management of the aquatic environment. Corresponding powers are conferred on Scottish and Welsh Ministers and DAERA in Northern Ireland by schedule 6. Primarily, the clause will ensure that the domestic aquatic animal health regime can be amended and updated after we leave the EU in order to preserve the UK’s high aquatic health status both in relation to aquaculture and the health of wild aquatic animals. The clause will allow the Secretary of State to regulate matters relating to the importation, exportation, movement, storage or handling of fish or other aquatic animals; products derived from fish; and any other thing that the Secretary of State considers may carry, or otherwise affects the prevalence of, a disease of fish or other aquatic animals.
The powers conferred by the clause will enable the UK to respond to new and emerging aquatic disease threats and disease outbreaks and to fulfil its international obligations as part of any future trade agreements. The clause is therefore essential to maintaining the high health status. I should point out that in 2009 the Diseases of Fish Act 1983 was repealed. We then relied on the European Communities Act 1972 to make changes to our regime for controlling fish and other aquatic diseases. The clause ensures that we have the powers we need to be able to continue to do that, as we lost the Diseases of Fish Act in the repeal of 2009 and we are now on the threshold of losing the powers that we have under the European Communities Act.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Scope of regulations under section 31 or 33
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
Clause 34 defines and limits the scope of regulation-making powers in clauses 31 and 33, ensuring that the devolved status of fisheries is respected. Subsection (1) allows for regulations made under clauses 31 and 33 to confer a function, including the imposition of fees. Subsection (2) allows for the creation of criminal offences, but not offences punishable by imprisonment. Subsection (3) states that regulations made under clauses 31 or 33 cannot include provisions that are within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly unless the provision is merely incidental or consequential.
Subsection (4) further restricts the use of powers under clauses 31 and 33 as the regulations may not be used to modify functions held by Welsh Ministers in relation to the enforcement of sea-fishing licences and regulating the conduct of fishing operations. Subsection (5) restricts the use of powers under clauses 31 and 33 so that they may not modify fisheries administrations’ functions relating to the licensing of fishing boats under any of the provisions in clauses 9 to 13 and schedule 2. Finally, subsection (7) sets out the broad scope of the power to amend any enactment. That will be essential for modifying retained EU law after our exit from the European Union.
In summary, the clause places limitations on the exercise of powers in clauses 31 and 33, predominantly to ensure that there is no encroachment on the devolution settlement that we have. I beg to move that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Scope of regulations under section 31 or 33 where consent obtained
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
This clause is about ensuring there is an ability—notwithstanding the fact that clause 34 is clear that it does not cut across the devolution settlement—to put in place a framework with the consent of each part of the UK so that a single authority can act with the consent of the others in an area that would otherwise be devolved. Subsections (1) to (3) require consent from the Scottish or Welsh Ministers or the Northern Ireland Department for regulations under clauses 31 and 33 to make provisions in areas of devolved competence. Subsection (4) requires consent from the Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department for regulations on matters relating to powers to license fishing boats. I beg to move that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Procedural requirements for regulations under section 31 or 33
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 36, page 22, line 24, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
Briefly, we tabled the amendment so that we could ask the Minister to explain why he believes that the negative procedure is the best option for this clause.
George Eustice
As I said, the Government have considered carefully the delegated powers in the Bill and the procedures that should apply to regulations. I will not rehearse the points I made about delegated powers and the precedents for this, but I will give the hon. Gentleman an indication of the technical issues that regulations under this part of the Bill may deal with. They may cover issues such as the catching, landing or selling of sea fish below a certain size—the minimum conservation reference size, as it is sometimes called—and the design of sea-fishing equipment. They may involve introducing a new selectivity measure for the squid fishery off the coast of his constituency, for instance. They may also involve minor issues to do with monitoring or enforcement of compliance.
We have a large number of technical conservation regulations under the existing common fisheries policy—some 90 bodies of regulations cover all sorts of things, from landing sizes to mesh sizes and from closures to prohibitions on landing small-eyed ray. Those are generally dealt with through delegated Acts that come from the Commission. We must have the power to make in-year amendments so that we can react quickly to changing circumstances by taking a stock off the prohibited list or putting it back on, and it is important that we have the ability to act expeditiously to manage our marine environment. Given that we have some 90 bodies of EU regulations and some 300 or 400 different technical regulations in total, I question whether there is appetite in this place for debating each and every one of those changes. The situation can be very dynamic and dozens of changes are made in a typical year.
On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not see the need to press the amendment to a vote, and that I have been able to reassure him why we chose the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative procedure in this case.
Mr Carmichael
I have lost count of the number of debates I have sat through in which we discussed whether to use the negative or affirmative procedure—“must” or “may”—but on this occasion the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport hits on a substantial point.
As we heard, the scope of regulations made under clauses 31 and 33 is defined by clause 34, which provides inter alia in subsection (2) that regulations made under clauses 31 or 33
“may create a criminal offence, but not one punishable with imprisonment.”
I am not surprised that imprisonment is not included, because I suspect the bulk of the offences created would be committed primarily by bodies corporate rather than private individuals. Notwithstanding that, offences created by regulations of this sort often attract financial penalties that run to several thousand pounds—sometimes tens of thousands of pounds—so they are not insignificant.
I deeply regret not challenging the Minister on this point when we debated clause 34.
George Eustice
I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to clause 36(2), which sets out clearly:
“Regulations under section 31 or 33 are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure”
if they cover a number of issues, including anything creating a criminal offence. Subsection (3) relates to the use of negative procedure on regulations left after those that fall under subsection (2) are taken out.
Mr Carmichael
That answers my point. I do not think I need detain the Committee any longer.
Luke Pollard
You are getting ahead of yourself, Mr Hanson. I am not a Minister yet, but the coming general election will be upon us soon.
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. As he said, there will be a large number of changes. He might want to reflect on how any changes made under negative procedure can be reported in the Secretary of State’s fisheries statements, even though it is not necessarily required to do so.
There is an opportunity. Because we are expecting the Minister to deliver so much change in the first couple of years after we leave the common fisheries policy, having it summarised and repeated annually would enable greater scrutiny and understanding of those changes. That would be beneficial not only for the fishing industry but for those who seek to scrutinise the work of Government. On the basis of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
I think we covered the key parts of the clause earlier. I again simply highlight that it sets out a number of cases where it is appropriate to use the affirmative resolution procedure under subsection (2). That includes any regulations that impose fees or create a criminal offence. The remainder of the largely technical conservation measures that are of a lower order and need to be changed regularly are provided for under the negative resolution procedure under subsection (3).
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Powers of Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and NI department
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
The clause simply serves to enable schedule 6, which will provide Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department with the powers necessary to manage fishery and agriculture industries in line with devolved competences. In doing so, the clause is part of a framework that allows Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to meet their obligations under the UN convention on the law of the sea and the UN fish stocks agreement.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Labour party fully supports the clause pertaining to schedule 6, which we will elaborate on later.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6
Powers to make further provision: devolved authorities
Mr Sweeney
I beg to move amendment 77, in schedule 6, page 45, line 43, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
We tabled the amendment because the schedule allows for the transfer of powers to Scottish Ministers and the power to make provisions on issues such as aquatic and animal diseases. The schedule will allow Scottish Ministers to make provisions for
“the purpose of monitoring, controlling, preventing or eradicating diseases of fish or other aquatic animals…in particular…provision regulating the importation, exportation, movement, storage or handling of…fish or other aquatic animals…products derived from fish or other aquatic animals…any other thing that the Scottish Ministers consider may carry, or otherwise affect the prevalence of, a disease of fish or other aquatic animals.”
We want to change that to an affirmative procedure because it will be a much better way of doing things.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The amendment is a step too far. There is sufficient protection for affirmative resolutions under clause 36 and paragraph 3(2) of the schedule, as the Minister pointed out. The Scottish Government need some leeway to be able to use the negative resolution procedure, and I do not think there is any need for this amendment. I would like to know whether the Labour party sought any assurances from the Scottish Government on whether they thought this amendment was necessary. I suggest that if the Scottish Government had wanted such an amendment, they would have tabled it themselves.
George Eustice
This is in many ways a mirror amendment to one we discussed earlier. It is unusual for me to agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, but he makes an important point: if we have just agreed one set of provisions giving the right to use the affirmative or negative resolution for England, it would suggest that we do not trust Scotland if we said that all their resolutions should be subject to the affirmative procedure. What is good for one part of the UK should be good for Scotland as well. I do not think this amendment is appropriate.
I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that this has been put in at the request of the Scottish Government. We worked closely with all the devolved Administrations to understand what they would like included in the Bill on their behalf, and this particular section dealing with the ability to fight aquatic diseases is understandably very important to Scotland, given that it has such a large salmon farming industry. It is at the request of the Scottish Government that this has been included in the way that it has. I think it is right that we treat the Scottish provisions in the same way that we treat the English provisions. I hope the shadow Front Bench will not see the need to press this particular amendment.
Mr Sweeney
We have been pretty consistent throughout the process in saying that we think affirmative measures are better because they provide extra scrutiny and extra control, and we think that is beneficial.
Alan Brown
On that point, given that the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues consistently say that the Scottish Labour is the party of devolution, does he agree that if Labour is the party of devolution, it should respect devolution rather than trying to make legislation here that the Scottish Government have not asked for?
Mr Sweeney
I do not think that is how devolution works. Devolution is a collaborative process. That is my reading of it. It is not a zero-sum game.
Mr Carmichael
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even where the Government in Edinburgh have agreed something with the Government in London, neither Government should expect to be immune from scrutiny by Parliament?
Mr Sweeney
I absolutely agree with that. In any system of democracy, at every tier there should be an element of interface and interaction, and that will be an ongoing process. It is not about a gradualist approach to independence, which is how the Scottish National party would like to view devolution. That is not how we view it. I will conclude, because there is no point in labouring this—pardon the pun—by saying that we accept that there is no agreement. It is unfortunate that we keep losing these votes on the negative emphasis versus the affirmative, but we are where we are in terms of the arithmetic. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
George Eustice
We have already covered part 1 of schedule 6, which specifically relates to the powers taken for Scotland to manage aquatic and animal diseases. I will briefly comment on parts 2 and 3, which make provisions for both Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Administration. Hon. Members will have noted that the provisions for Wales and Northern Ireland are different from those for Scotland in that parts 2 and 3 also have provisions that mirror clause 31. In other words, schedule 6 gives Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Administration the ability to make those technical conservation measures that we discussed earlier in the context of clause 31 for England.
I should point out that at this stage that, when the Bill was drafted, Scottish Ministers said that they did not want those provisions included in the Bill on their behalf. We understood that at that point they might have been considering doing this themselves through their own legislation. However, we have recently been told by Scottish Ministers that that position has changed and they would like us to perhaps consider at a later stage of the Bill adding powers for Scotland akin to those afforded in parts 2 and 3 for Wales and Northern Ireland.
This is obviously an issue that we will discuss further with Scottish Ministers. It is complicated by the fact that they have not yet confirmed that they will grant a legislative consent motion for the Bill. Nevertheless, I thought I should highlight to members of the Committee why there is a difference between part 1 for Scotland, and parts 2 and 3 for Wales and Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 6 accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Iain Stewart.)
Fisheries Bill (Tenth sitting)
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 68, in schedule 7, page 57, line 15, leave out “and” and insert “or”.
This amendment would amend the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to enable the Marine Management Organisation to make byelaws to protect marine features in circumstances where the need for protection is not necessarily urgent.
It is good to see that Government Members managed to refresh themselves appropriately during our short break. I will not carry on speaking until Opposition Members return. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Hanson, that we have a long oratory ahead of us about the protection of the marine environment and shipwrecks, so you can look forward to that. In all honesty, this should be relatively brief. It picks up on the discussion that we had on the aquatic environment the other day.
The amendment seeks to expand the remit to protect marine features when it is not specifically urgent to ensure we care for our marine environment proactively. I will not go on about shipwrecks too much; we have already been through a number of reasons why protecting them is important. However, last week when I referred to archaeological and historic features, the Minister contended that archaeology is addressed by marine licensing under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. It is important to note that fishing is not subject to marine licensing under the MCAA because licensing offers no protection in respect of wrecks. In addition, the Protection of Wrecks Act does not restrict fishing activity, and assurances were given during its introduction to that effect back in the ’70s:
“The situation of designated historic wreck sites is different. There will be no bar on any kind of fishing from the surface, either commercially or for sport.”—[Official Report, 4 May 1973; Vol. 855, c. 1706.]
So said a politician in the ’70s, long before I was born. A member of the Lords said:
“My Lords, the Bill does not prohibit navigation, anchoring, fishing or bathing within these restricted areas, except when those activities amount to obstruction of an authorised salvage operation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 May 1973; Vol. 342, c. 931.]
That is why the Opposition believe that it is necessary to have specific provisions for archaeological and historic features within fisheries legislation. I am grateful for the support of the Honor Frost Foundation Steering Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage, which dug out those records from the 1970s. The amendment is necessary to ensure that underwater and aquatic environments are protected, especially the historic wreck sites. Will the Minister address those concerns?
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. The real purpose of schedule 7 is to make consequential amendments to the Marine and Coastal Access Act to ensure that the suite of powers contained in the Act, to make byelaws both within and outwith marine conservation zones, can be extended to the English offshore region: the zone that would currently be affected predominantly by EU law and the common fisheries policy.
Amendment 68 proposes deleting the word “and” and inserting the word “or”. The schedule states that
“there...may be reasons for the Secretary of State to consider whether to designate the area as an MCZ”.
The amendment would add the word “or” before the phrase,
“that there is an urgent need to protect the feature.”
New section 9 specifically relates to section 132 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act and the designation of marine conservation zones. It gives the powers to designate in those zones where there is an MCZ and where there is an urgent need to protect a feature: in other words, where it is under consideration to designate a zone as a marine conservation zone, but there is an urgent threat to that emerging policy and therefore a need to act expeditiously.
In the narrow context in which paragraph 9 operates, which is simply around the designation of marine conservation zones, the use of “and” is the appropriate link between paragraphs (2)(1A)(a) and (2)(1A)(b) because they are interdependent. This particular power would be used in circumstances only in which someone intended to have a marine conservation zone. Other parts of schedule 7, not least paragraph (6), set out broader byelaw-making powers that can be used, whether or not the feature that somebody attempts to protect is in a designated marine conservation zone.
I hope that I have been able to explain to the hon. Gentleman why “and” is used in the paragraph—because the sub-paragraphs are interdependent—rather than “or”, which suggests that they should stand alone. As I said, this is within the narrow context of a soon to be designated marine conservation zone.
Luke Pollard
I thank the Minister for his remarks. I suspect that his officials will revisit provisions on the protection of wrecks when the Bill goes to the House of Lords. The Minister will be relieved that he will not have to repeat his speech about the aquatic environment for a bit.
Importantly, the purpose of the amendment on protecting our marine heritage is to make sure that conflict between fishing and the protection of our natural and marine heritage sites on the seabed is understood and managed in advance of its arising. However, on the basis of the Minister’s remarks, and in anticipation of our friends down the corridor making similar forceful arguments on the basis of what the Minister said, I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
George Eustice
Schedule 7 simply defines the byelaw-making powers, provided for under clause 38, conferred on the Marine Management Organisation and Ministers of the devolved Administrations for the enforcement of marine conservation standards. Schedule 7 defines the scope and procedure for creating byelaws in the UK’s exclusive economic zone by the MMO in England and Northern Ireland, or Ministers in Scotland and Wales, for the purpose of protecting the UK’s marine environment.
Paragraph 1 introduces an amendment to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and paragraphs 2 to 5 address the nomenclature in that Act. Paragraphs 6 to 10 insert new clauses into the Act, providing the Marine Management Organisation with byelaw-making powers within the English offshore region for the purpose of preserving marine flora or fauna, marine habitats or types of marine habitat.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 7 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 39
Regulations
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 39, page 23, line 30, at end insert—
“(4A) Before making any regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or the Northern Ireland department (as the case may be) must consult with affected stakeholders”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or the Northern Ireland department to consult with affected stakeholders before making regulations.
The Minister is keen to say that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consults constantly and does not need legislation to help make sure that it does so. However, there are already some requirements in the Bill to consult, and Government amendment 6 added another duty to consult in clause 22, in response to a recommendation from the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Our amendment 67 simply seeks to put in place consistent duties to consult on all regulations provided for in the Bill.
As we have discussed, this duty is particularly important for regulations that receive less parliamentary scrutiny, or none at all, to make sure that affected individuals, businesses and communities have an adequate opportunity to make their views known before the law is put in place—especially when laws are introduced afresh after we leave the European Union. I am sure that the Minister will have spotted other duties to consult in clauses 19, 29, 36, and schedule 1, which requires an element of consultation on the joint fisheries statement, as well as schedules 5, 6 and 7. Our amendment seeks to make sure that, before any regulations are made, there is sufficient consultation with the relevant stakeholders.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The amendment refers to Scottish Ministers. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it would work in practice? Who would decide whom Scottish Ministers had to consult? If they were somehow deemed not to have consulted the relevant stakeholders, what would be the repercussions? Would the matter be reported back to the Westminster Government? Clearly the Scottish Government are responsible for their own legislation.
Luke Pollard
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to suggest that the Scottish Government would make any regulations without consulting Scottish communities.
Luke Pollard
Therefore the point should be moot. The important thing is how disputes are regulated and managed in the Bill. We need to ensure that it gives confidence to environmental stakeholders operating in the sector, whether they are businesses, fishers or coastal communities, that they will be adequately consulted before any regulations are made under clause 39. It is an important principle to enshrine in the Bill that there must be sufficient good-quality consultation before any regulations are made.
George Eustice
As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport points out, we have included an explicit requirement in some clauses to consult where appropriate, generally in cases that raise specific issues that have a bearing on cost recovery, on the proposed sale of fishing opportunities—as in our new clause 22 —or on devolved Administrations. However, I do not think it appropriate to have a statutory requirement to consult on every single measure that might be introduced under the Bill. Such a requirement would be very unusual; the Department’s existing statutory obligations to consult relate predominantly to issues of food safety and food standards. As I have said before, we generally do not need encouragement to consult. Many consultations come across my desk; I often ask officials whether a consultation is really required, but our very strict internal Government guidelines and Cabinet Office guidance mean that we consult regularly on most issues.
I envisage that most of the issues covered by the Bill would be subject to a consultation. We have chosen to introduce a statutory requirement to consult on very significant matters—those that have cost implications for industry or potentially serious implications for the relationship with devolved Administrations—but that does not mean that we will not consult on many, many other provisions in the Bill. Indeed, I anticipate our doing so, but I do not believe that it would be appropriate to put that in the Bill.
Luke Pollard
I thank the Minister for his response, but it is a bit disappointing. The principle of consultation is a fine one. I note what he says about DEFRA undertaking a range of consultations during his time as a Minister, but winning the confidence and trust of the fishing industry after Brexit will depend on any changes to the rules having its full consent and support, whether those changes relate to quota allocation, safety, licensing or any other aspect of fishing. The best way of achieving that is by following the principle of consulting. However, as the Minister has effectively committed to consulting on the key things, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41
Extent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
Clause 41 simply confirms that the extent of the Bill is the whole of the United Kingdom, except in relation to schedule 6. It is a standard clause that appears in all Bills. Schedule 6 sets out the powers of the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department. The Bill extends certain provisions to the Crown dependencies as a result of the UK representing them at an international level.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Commencement
George Eustice
I beg to move amendment 112, in clause 42, page 26, line 29, after “Sections” insert
“(Fisheries agreement between the UK and the EU), (Amendments that could have been made under existing powers) and”.
This amendment would ensure that NC22 and NC4 are commenced on the day of Royal Assent.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 22—Fisheries agreement between the UK and the EU.
Government new clause 4—Amendments that could have been made under existing powers.
George Eustice
New clause 22 is a significant new clause that the Government have tabled to address some concerns that have been raised in the context of the draft withdrawal agreement, which has returned. As hon. Members will be aware, the draft withdrawal agreement that the House will consider in the new year contains a provision that says that, in the event of there being a future partnership and an agreement with the European Union, it will be necessary by July 2020 to have in place a new framework agreement for fisheries management between the EU and the UK.
New clause 22 simply sets out in statute a point of Government policy that was set out very clearly in our White Paper. As we leave the European Union and become an independent coastal state, it is our clear intention to move away from the current relative stability shares of quota, which are unfair on the British fishing industry, and move towards something that is closer to zonal attachment for the majority of stocks—that is to say, it is about where the stocks reside. The effect of new clause 22 is to place a statutory obligation on the Government not to agree continued access at the current level for the European Union unless we receive an increase in fishing opportunities and secure that all-important departure from relative stability. That means that, in the event of our putting together a new partnership with the European Union, it will not be possible for the Government to conclude the partnership unless our fishing industry sees an increased share of the total allowable catch in return for that continued access.
The approach that we seek to take is similar to what already happens with the EU-Norway agreement, where a framework agreement runs for a number of years but certain presumptions underlie it. The presumption that will underlie our future economic partnership with the European Union, in so far as it relates to fisheries, is that, in return for granting continued access to the European Union, the quid pro quo for the British fleet will be a fairer share of the total allowable catch, which goes above and beyond that which is set out in the current relative stability shares.
Luke Pollard
I appreciate that the Minister is trying to put up a smokescreen by saying that this is a very important new clause and that this is the right place for it, but this justifies the critique of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), who said that the Bill was hurried out too quickly, and that its implications had not been fully understood. An element as important as the Minister suggested new clause 22 is should have been included in the Bill in the first instance, and not added only when the political problems with the withdrawal agreement emerged.
I have a number of questions about the new clause. It includes the new term “Union fishing boats”. Will the Minister set out how that differs from the term “foreign fishing boats”, which is used in the rest of the Bill? We must make sure there are no loopholes that can be exploited in relation to the distinction between Union and foreign fishing boats.
In the event of what some in the fishing industry regard as the inevitable sell-out by people above his pay grade, can the Minister tell me how this Bill would be changed when there is potentially no additional quota or fish allocated to UK fishers? Can that be done for this part of the Bill under the Henry VIII powers that the Government possess, or would it require new primary legislation to alter this part of the Bill, in the event that there is a betrayal of fishers in any future negotiations? I ask that because the experience of fishing is that it was promised that it would be excluded from the transition period, only to find that those promises from the Secretary of State and indeed the fisheries Minister himself were worth nothing, which remains a very raw sore for many of our colleagues in the fisheries sector. There are some important aspects to this.
The principle is one that I can support: we should get a fairer share of fish. Relative stability has poorly served our coastal communities and fishing industry, and the move to zonal attachment is one that is supported by Labour as well as the Government. How that is done is uncertain in this Bill, and what promises will be delivered is also uncertain in this Bill, because so many of those promises will be subject to the further negotiation that will follow if any deal is done and then if any economic and future partnership is put in place.
There is an awful lot of uncertainty in relation to that, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Bill can be changed should there be a betrayal of the fishing industry, and if he could explain the distinction between “Union” and “foreign” fishing boats.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Essentially, my position is not much different from that of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I fear that the Minister perhaps slightly oversells the importance of new clause 22 as it is drafted. Largely, it is yet another statement of good intent. Ultimately, the extent to which these intentions are delivered will be determined by the political will and authority that is put into them by the Government.
We know that something in the region of 40% of the fish caught in UK waters comes to the UK. When the Minister talks about fairer shares, he has—let us say—some significant leeway. If he or any of his successors were to deliver a deal that produced 41% or 42%, then by definition it would be a fairer share, but it would be far from the promises that were made to the industry at the time of the referendum.
I have no objection to new clause 22; I certainly would not vote against it. It is useful to have a clause of this sort in the Bill, but it is capable of being improved. I think that is something we will consider on Report.
Alan Brown
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hanson.
I think I am slightly more cynical than the previous two contributors. We know this was a much-trailed new clause, which was intended to give reassurance to the Brexiteers that the fishing industry will not be sold out. It was actually intended to sway those MPs, or, as the Minister put it earlier, convince those with concerns about the withdrawal agreement. Given the current chaos that the Government are still in, can the Minister say how that has gone, in terms of convincing those MPs that all is good thanks to this new clause?
Also, considering that throughout the sittings of this Committee the Government have voted down amendments that they say do not need to be in the Bill or that are covered elsewhere, particularly statements of good intent, it seems to me that this new clause is one of those superfluous clauses, which normally the Government themselves would speak out against.
I would not quite say that the new clause is in “Yes, Minister” language, but it is certainly drafted with loose language that is not particularly binding. Subsection (2) states:
“The Secretary of State must pursue the following two objectives”.
The “objectives” are things that we can actually agree on, so that is all well and good, but being asked to pursue something and being duty-bound to deliver it are vastly different propositions. We can ask anybody to pursue something, but the likelihood of them getting an outcome is slightly different.
Subsection (3) says:
“The first objective is that the agreement should provide for annual negotiations”.
Again, I agree that that is desirable, but clearly it is non-binding. It says “should” and we cannot bind the EU, the other side. That in itself stands out.
Subsection (4) is the standalone objective, which is that EU
“boats are not granted access to UK waters in any year unless the fishing opportunities…are…greater than those…available under relative stability”.
Again, that is fine as an objective, but no one expects EU boats to be banned outright from UK waters.
Subsection (5) provides a real get-out clause for the Secretary of State, because it provides for him or her to be the one who assesses whether the opportunities are greater than they would otherwise have been under the CFP. Where is the transparency in that assessment? How will it be carried out and who will be able to challenge it?
In many ways, the new clause is pointless, put in as a political means to an end—to sway Brexiteers, although it has not even been able to do that. I would like to hear the Minister’s views on that.
George Eustice
I wondered whether during the break too many hon. Members had spoken to Martin Salter—there are a lot of “glass half empty” perspectives.
Since the Bill was published and Second Reading, we have had the conclusion of the withdrawal agreement, which is now before the House. That final withdrawal agreement included the reference to the need to have a plan in place by July 2020. Concerns were expressed that fisheries might be bargained away, as a number of hon. Members have said. I therefore think that it is absolutely right, since it is not at all the intention or plan of the Government to do such a thing, that we put in place on the face of the Bill, in statute, the safeguard to ensure that we get a fairer share of the total allowable catch in exchange for future access.
Alan Brown
Again with reference to the language of “should” and “pursue”, how does the new clause—even when in statute—stop future trade agreements or even the final outcome of the EU withdrawal Bill, with the backstop and so on, doing something else? How does the new clause prevent the other scenarios under the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill?
George Eustice
Because the second objective is clear: as a consequence of giving access to our waters, we want a fairer share of the total allowable catch. Having seen a few fisheries negotiations now, they have—put simply—three key variables: overall size of the catch for each stock, or the total allowable catch, and we argue each year about the science on each stock; the allocation of those stocks, or who gets what slice of the cake, and at the moment we get a very unfair slice of many stocks, in particular down in the channel and in the west country; and, finally, the issue of access.
In any fisheries negotiation, access is the trump card, because when push comes to shove, we can say to countries fishing in our waters, “If you think that you can catch that quantity of fish to have that share of the total allowable catch, catch them in your own waters.” That flushes out the positions of other states in that negotiation. As a country, we are in a powerful position, because within our exclusive economic zone we have a very large fisheries resource to which many other countries seek to have access. The quid pro quo for future access to that stock will be that we have a fairer share of the total allowable catch—that is a normal dynamic in any fisheries negotiation. That is the approach we will take.
Alan Brown
I accept there is an opportunity for a greater share going forward, but the Minister is saying that if this measure is in statute, we move to that position quicker. Will he explain why the new clause will prevent the UK from getting into the backstop situation? How is that compatible with the backstop?
George Eustice
In a backstop situation, there is no withdrawal agreement, and there is no need for a fisheries agreement with the EU. That said, we would probably still seek to put one in place. In a backstop situation, however, the default is that we have complete control over access to our waters, there is no agreement on fisheries and there are no undertakings to give any access to the EU at all. It is also the case that in the backstop situation there would be tariffs on fisheries products that go into the European Union. That is the position as far as the backstop is concerned.
Alan Brown
Does the Minister accept that in the backstop there would not be tariffs on fish exported from Northern Ireland, but there would be tariffs on fish exported from the Great Britain mainland, thereby putting Scottish and other UK fisherman at a disadvantage compared with Northern Ireland?
George Eustice
My understanding is that in the backstop there would be tariffs on all fish from the UK.
George Eustice
I will clarify that before the end of the debate, but principally, yes. The principle of the backstop—which we all want to avoid—is that there would not be tariff-free trade in fisheries products, but equally we would not be obliged to give any access to our waters.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Subsection (5) of the new clause talks about the opportunities that would have been available for that year under the common fisheries policy. Will there be some kind of sunset clause to the new clause? As time goes on and the common fisheries policy becomes more of a distant memory, it will be very difficult to calculate what the UK would have been able to get under the CFP in five or ten years’ time. I can see how that would work for the next two or three years, but in five, 10, 15 or 20 years’ time, the calculation will be very difficult, if not impossible, to make.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but we will know what the relative stability shares on each stock are at the point that we leave. Indeed, the relative stability share is what it says on the tin—relative stability means that nothing changes. The shares that we have for each stock have not actually changed since the early ’80s, and we can still reference today’s shares based on what was agreed in the late ’70s and early ’80s. This is not a dynamic process; relative stability is set in concrete. That is part of the problem for us.
The shadow Minister asks why we refer to “Union” vessels rather than “foreign” vessels. The point is that there are foreign vessels seeking access to our waters from countries that are not members of the European Union, principally Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic vessels. Therefore, “Union” vessels specifically refers to the EU fleet, rather than those from other third countries, which are not covered, although we would apply the same principles. He also asked whether the provision could be changed. It could be changed with primary legislation, but this particular provision could not be changed with a statutory instrument of the sort that he outlined. I believe that new clause 22 is an important new clause that clearly sets down the Government’s approach to getting a fairer share of the total allowable catch on these stocks in exchange for any future access. I beg to move the Government’s new clause 22 and amendment 112.
The Chair
We will come to the new clauses later in proceedings. The proposals before us at the moment is amendment 112 to clause 42.
Amendment 112 agreed to.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 110, in clause 42, page 26, line 29, after “43” insert “and section (Fishing industry skills strategy)”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish within 12 months of the Act coming into force a skills strategy for the fishing industry after consultation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 24—Fishing industry skills strategy—
‘(1) Within 1 year of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for skills, employment and economic regeneration for the fishing industry.
(2) Before publishing a strategy under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,
(b) the Welsh Ministers,
(c) the Northern Ireland department,
(d) representatives of the fishing industry,
(e) any other person the Secretary of State considers appropriate.’
Luke Pollard
Amendment 110 and new clause 24 both aim to tackle one of the key issues currently facing the fishing industry, namely the shortage of skills and the potential for growing employment. Talking to those in the industry, I regularly hear concerns about the difficulty of attracting the next generation into fishing and the fears of people already engaged in the industry about the loss of European workers after Brexit. That is especially the case for those fishers in the north of England and Scotland.
We know that many crews contain no one under the age of 40. If boats are to capitalise on any increased quota in future, we will need a new approach to training and skills. By requiring the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for dealing with these issues, we hope that this problem will finally be taken seriously and steps put in place to address the skills and people shortages in fishing.
We appreciate the important role played by Seafish, the non-departmental public body sponsored by DEFRA. We are concerned, however, that Ministers have at times passed off their responsibility for training and skills by suggesting that that is mainly a matter for Seafish, not them. On this issue, we need leadership and strategy from the top, which is what the amendment seeks to create.
Looking at the Government’s approach, it may be helpful to remind hon. Members of what the Minister previously set out. In a debate last year, he said:
“To secure the skilled workforce that the food, farming and fisheries sector needs for the future, Government and industry must work in partnership to prioritise training and skills.”
He went on to highlight their industrial strategy and said that it would include
“skills as one of its core pillars”,
as well as reforms to apprenticeships and the post-16 plan that features T-levels, which he said would create
“clear routes into the sector.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2017; Vol. 624, c. 478WH.]
There is not time to pore over the Government’s entire skills strategy in detail, but it is worth looking at where we are on the areas that the Minister previously highlighted and why that demonstrates the need for a dedicated fishing industry skills strategy.
Although the industrial strategy is more than 250 pages long and contains plenty of general skills policy, it does not mention fish or fishing once, which seems to show a disappointing lack of cross-departmental working between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It is all well and good for the Minister to state his commitment to improving fishing skills, but if he cannot convince his Government colleagues to mention fishing in the strategy papers, the problem will not receive the attention that all hon. Members present think it deserves. The obvious solution is for DEFRA to launch its own skills strategy with reference to what BEIS, the Department for Education and those in the devolved Administrations are doing, which the amendment would deliver.
On apprenticeships, we agree that they are a vital means of training up the next generation. The Whitby Fishing School, which has offered apprenticeships aimed at those newly entering the industry, is a good example. Andrew Hodgson, its business development manager, told The Daily Telegraph last year:
“We need some young blood coming in otherwise the industry is going to die a death.”
He is right.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) visited the school, however, she found that it was experiencing difficulties in securing funding for courses. She discovered that the school finds it incredibly difficult to deliver courses that truly equip young people to work at sea and that tick the relevant boxes to secure funding for that training. The school had asked the Government to reflect on whether the framework in place for developing apprenticeships and training programmes was fit for purpose in attracting and retaining the fishers of tomorrow. We hope that a new skills strategy could provide the answers to those exact questions.
On T-levels, the Government have said that the subject range of T-level programmes will be defined by the Institute for Apprenticeships’ occupational maps. We are glad that fishermen are mentioned in the maps, but under the agriculture operative/technician cluster. Looking more closely at how T-levels will function, it is T-level panels that will develop the outline content for qualifications. Those panels are currently made up of employers that define the skills and requirements for the qualifications.
When we analysed the Government’s picks for the agriculture, land management and production panel, which includes fishing, we were disappointed that not a single member was listed from the fishing industry. The Minister may be able to provide some explanation for that, but it certainly appears that T-levels, on their current design, will not provide any real focus on sorting out the skills shortages in fishing as a priority. Can the Minister also confirm that any T-levels that could cover fishing are not expected to be delivered until at least 2022? It is clear that the lack of detail about T-levels and fishing further proves the need for a dedicated skills strategy for the fishing industry.
Because of the effect that Brexit might have on the number of EU nationals able and willing to work at sea, an already dire recruitment situation is in danger of becoming catastrophic, particularly in several geographic locations around the UK. We face the real risk of fishers walking away from the industry as they cannot staff their boats. I hope that the Minister can offer some reassurance on that issue, which is made pressing by Brexit, and that hon. Members will consider backing this important amendment.
In particular, I ask the Minister to have words with his colleagues in the Home Office, who still do not regard fishing as a skilled profession. I challenge any Home Office Minister to go on a trawler and catch fish to see whether that is true or not.
Mr Carmichael
Briefly, I support the amendment of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport in letter and spirit. This is not a new problem—it is not something that we would lay at the door of the current Government or any particular Government. The situation has been developing and getting gradually worse for years and years. The problem probably goes into much of what young people are told in schools: they see fishing as a dangerous occupation, requiring long hours at sea and long days’ work in difficult circumstances, and they are generally discouraged from it. It will take a long time to turn that around and get back to the stage where fishing communities produce young men who want to go into the fishing industry.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no an overnight solution? We cannot just go to the local jobcentre and get a bunch of unemployed people; as the shadow Minister said, fishing is not an unskilled job. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the chief executive of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association that it could take up to 10 years at least to get to a point where we are no longer dependent on foreign labour?
Mr Carmichael
That is almost certainly going to be the case, but it is effectively a guess, because none of us really knows. It took us a long time to get to this point, and the only thing that is certain is that it will take a long time to get from here. The length of time it takes will be determined by the effort that both the industry and the Government are prepared to put in to turning the situation around. That is why a strategy such as this, led by the Government but with proper buy-in from the industry, will be crucial.
It may well be that as the industry develops, people will of their own volition see it as a more attractive proposition for the future, but that is certainly not the case now. I am open to argument as to whether it is necessary to have this issue in the Bill, but I want to see some movement on it, because as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said at the end of his speech moving the amendment, we are in a quite dreadful situation at the moment, where fishing boats in parts of Scotland remain tied up because they cannot get the crew. We know that there are crew out there willing to work here, but they are unable to come here and we do not have the home-grown crew to put on those boats.
David Duguid
As the shadow Minister noted, as we leave the EU we will no longer have freedom of movement, but is it not the case, certainly in Scotland, that the vast majority of the foreign workers that the fishing industry is dependent on comes from outside the European economic area?
Mr Carmichael
It is very much the case. I think principally they are Filipinos, but there are some Ghanaians and people from other seafaring countries, and generally their contribution is very well regarded. I am constantly getting emails from skippers who are asking for a visa renewal for this or that individual. We are now in a bizarre situation where the only way we can get non-EEA nationals on to a boat is for them to have a transit visa—that is, they effectively come in as merchant seamen, which then requires the boats to operate outside territorial waters.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
I certainly share some of the sentiments expressed by my colleagues. In particular, speaking to skippers on the west coast of Scotland, one of the major issues is getting people to crew the vessels. While it is admirable that there are discussions on developing a strategy, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the immigration policy has an immense part to play in securing staff for the vessels, and that the industry itself—which can be very financially rewarding, given the right climate and conditions—has an immense part to play in again attracting people to join it?
Mr Carmichael
That is absolutely the position. I know it is not the Minister’s responsibility and this is about the skills strategy, but every time we debate this, the Immigration Minister always says, “Well, of course, what we want to be doing is growing our own labour.” She is right about that; so here is an opportunity for the Government to follow through on their good intentions and ensure that we start to grow that labour for ourselves.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman represents an island community; the distinctive needs of island communities must be reflected in this Bill. Does he recognise that the general trend is that fishing tends to be a family trade? Perhaps we could look at ways to ensure that the trade becomes something that people choose to migrate to island and highland communities for. Would that not be beneficial?
Mr Carmichael
That would be beneficial. I can think of a number of people I have known over the years who have done exactly as the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, the pool will still be those who grow up in fishing industries, who—to pick up on the earlier point by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport—get their first interest piqued by recreational angling. Those living in island or coastal communities can become interested when all the opportunities are around them.
The Minister has been to the NAFC fisheries college in Scalloway, Shetland. He has praised its work, as we all do. It is a fantastic institution, but it lives pretty much hand to mouth. With the best will in the world, there are not the resources at the moment to ensure a secure future for an institution such as that. If that formed part of a strategy, which would have to be a wide exercise, there would be an obvious sea of opportunity for institutions such as that. I commend the hon. Gentleman for moving the amendment; I suggest it is significant and an opportunity for the Minister to make good some of the sentiments that we have heard from Ministers in other Departments.
George Eustice
Right hon. and hon. Members have raised a very important issue. They will appreciate that it is predominantly an issue on which other Departments lead, such as the Department for Education on apprenticeships. Immigration, particularly of non-EEA crews, which is a contentious issue in parts of the UK—notably in Northern Ireland and Scotland—is a matter for the Home Office. Nevertheless, I have made representations on behalf of the industry to Home Office Ministers. At a recent debate, I said I would go back and have that discussion again. Right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that I have not quite had the time to do that yet, but it remains on my to-do list. I will engage on the matter of non-EEA crews with the Home Office in the new year.
When it comes to skills, I am aware that some specific fishing issues have meant that the apprenticeships model has not always worked as well as it should. One of the issues that the industry has raised is that there is a practice of giving a share of the catch value to the fishermen on crews, which does not always sit very easily with how apprenticeships are structured, because those involved have to be on a fixed salary to access them. There are some challenging issues, such as that one, which the Department for Education is looking at.
However, I want to limit my comments to what the fishing industry is doing. The seafood industry leadership group, which has been sponsored and supported by the levy body Seafish, has established a special authority to deliver its Seafood 2040 strategy. Part of that includes delivery of a single cross-sector seafood training and skills plan and supporting businesses in the seafood supply chain to recruit workers with suitable skills.
We recently announced an additional £37.2 million of funding for new projects approved under the European maritime and fisheries fund during 2019 and 2020. Some of those projects could include the delivery of skills and training. In addition, we have announced that the Government will put in place new domestic long-term arrangements to support the UK’s fishing industry from 2021, with new schemes to support that.
Across the country we have some centres of excellence for training when it comes to fisheries. In England, we have the Whitby & District Fishing Industry Training School, which has a great track record. As a mentioned earlier, I visited Shetland with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland a few years ago, which the marine training school is based. In recent years we have trained several hundred new fishermen through the various schemes, so it is not all bad news, but I recognise that there is more to do. In particular, that project of the seafood industry leadership group is best placed to pull together a skills plan in the area in question.
Skills is a devolved issue, and the inference with respect to new clause 24 is that there would be a UK-wide skills strategy, as there is a requirement to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department. I suspect that Scottish Ministers in particular would want rather more than a consultation on a devolved area. We can address the matter as England, and it will be for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to address it for themselves.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that I agree that this is an important issue and that there have been difficulties in the past with some design features of the apprenticeship scheme. We have raised those previously with ministerial colleagues and they have sought to address them. However, the new clause goes somewhat beyond the scope of the Bill, which deals with fisheries management and opportunities, rather than skills. Skills are a matter for a different Department.
Luke Pollard
I assure the Minister that we tried to get a lot of items selected that were outside the scope of the Bill. If we managed to sneak something in, that is because it is within the scope of the Bill, not outside as he suggests.
I am disappointed that the Minister did not pick up the gauntlet that the Opposition have set down, on the matter of skills, and take it more seriously. There is a skills crisis in the fishing industry and if we are to realise the opportunities that will come from Brexit, which the Minister has been so keen to extol, we will need more people in the fishing industry, in the catching and other sectors. That is why we need a cross-Government skills strategy—to support the development of skills across the UK.
The Minister mentioned that there are a number of areas of best practice, and indeed there are. Several places are doing a good job with skills, but the problem is that they are all struggling for funding and to make what they offer fit with other bits of Government policy that the Minister has set out. A skills strategy would present the opportunity to identify some of the problems and support areas of additional growth. The seafood industry leadership group seems to be on to the right thing, but I have said that it is not enough to allow Seafish and its other bodies to do all the work. We need senior leadership from Ministers, and, sadly, that did not seem to be forthcoming in the Minister’s response. On that basis, we shall not withdraw the amendment, but press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Carmichael
I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 42, page 26, line 35, after “appoint” insert
“, provided such day shall not be later than 31 December 2020.”.
To ensure that the UK leaves the EU Common Fisheries Policy no later than December 2020.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 1, in clause 42, page 26, line 35, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must make regulations under subsection (3) so that all provisions of this Act come into force no later than 31 December 2020.”.
Mr Carmichael
The amendment would make clear in the Bill that, if the provisions of the clause have not been brought into force by the end of the transitional period—31 December 2020—they will come into force at that point. The context for the amendment is the decision taken by the Government in March to concede that fisheries should be part of the transitional arrangements.
The Committee heard evidence from several people that that decision ran rather contrary to the expectations of the industry. Promises had been made, including by the Prime Minister herself, that, come 29 March 2019, we would leave the common fisheries policy, and that that would be the end of the matter. Perhaps at some point somebody will tell me why it was thought necessary to include fisheries in the transitional arrangements. Barry Deas of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations said that it was because fisheries is part of the general acquis. Bertie Armstrong, from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, had a more political explanation, shall we say, saying that there were four or five countries that were not going to let the transitional arrangements go through unless fisheries were a part of it.
It is fair to say that the decision has caused a lot of angst and, indeed, anger in the fishing industry. There are historical reasons for that, which I will not go into in any great depth, but the Committee will know the references to the 1970s and those within the Heath Government who took the view that the industry was dispensable.
Alan Brown
I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There is clearly a lot of anger in the fishing industry, which I am pretty sure will welcome the amendment. However, how would it work in reality? We have heard the Prime Minister say that she might extend the transitional arrangements instead of using the backstop. If we get the amendment in statute, in theory fisheries would need to be excluded from that extended transitional period. Is it not the reality that an international agreement might override the amendment, and that the Government would come back and amend it, even if it is in statute?
Mr Carmichael
I am not entirely sure about an international agreement overriding the amendment. This is primary legislation made by Parliament. In effect, if the Government anticipate breaking their further undertakings—that is to say that the UK would be out of the common fisheries policy at the end of 31 December 2020—the amendment, if accepted, would in turn require to be amended. That would be cumbersome, which is why the Minister will doubtless not like it, but that, of course, is why the industry wants it. I have not spoken to a single member of the industry or a single representative of any fishing organisation who is prepared to take the Government’s word on trust in relation to this matter. Given that we are where we are, and indeed that the Government are where they are, I think Members will understand that position.
If we are in a position to implement the clause earlier, it can be implemented earlier. The political declaration says that an early arrangement for fishing matters would be desirable, and I do not doubt that to be the case. However, like many in the industry, I do not see what could stop the four or five who were awkward, shall we say, over the creation of the transitional arrangements being awkward in relation to the final deal. The purpose of having 31 December 2020 as the implementation date is just one further encouragement to stiffen the resolve of Ministers.
Luke Pollard
Earlier in the Committee’s deliberations, we considered whether the Bill needed more flexibility when it came to the commencement debate. It is noticeable that with amendment 1, which accompanies the amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, my neighbours from south-east and north Cornwall, whose constituencies are close to the Minister’s, have tabled a similar amendment about the commencement date.
I share fishers’ concern about the upcoming betrayal. It is no secret that I fear that people above the fisheries Minister’s pay grade—the Environment Secretary, the Prime Minister and others—will be looking to betray fishing in the future negotiations. The idea of having a solid date for leaving the EU common fisheries policy is appealing to fishing and to people who do not disbelieve Ministers’ words but have concerns about whether it can be delivered, given the strong and firm negotiating position of some of our EU friends in relation to this.
The key thing that the Opposition want to highlight is that the industry has every right to be concerned about our departure from the common fisheries policy. It was made promises about departing the CFP in relation to the transition, and they were repeated week in, week out up until a week before the Government’s U-turn on that position. It has every right to be cautious and sceptical about the Government’s promises. The Government have seen fit to amend the Bill to require an improvement to our position in relation to relative stability in any future negotiations. Surely the same principle should apply to this area, and the Minister should want to attach a date to our exit from the CFP.
I want to ask a similar question to the one I asked about the Minister’s earlier amendment. Will this be subject to primary legislation, or are there any Secret Squirrel or Henry VIII powers up the Minister’s sleeve that will enable this to be adjusted in the event—or the inevitability—that article 50 is extended and the future of fishing within the CFP is betrayed?
David Duguid
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. Amendment 1 is a probing amendment relating to a concern raised by several hon. Members—[Interruption.] Give me a second to finish my first paragraph, and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun.
The concern has been raised by hon. Members including those who tabled the amendment—my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann)—the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the shadow Minister. I do not know whether this will reassure Opposition Members. I am sure the Minister will forgive me for reiterating this concern, which I have raised relentlessly, not just with him but with Ministers and Cabinet members above his pay grade, and I will continue to do so.
Alan Brown
I was just chuntering from the sidelines. The hon. Gentleman said that this is a probing amendment. Does that mean that he is not deadly serious about it and is not willing to press it to a vote?
David Duguid
I have heard comments from the Minister that reassure me to some extent, but as the hon. Gentleman knows other things are afoot that make it very difficult to pass this amendment right now. I will comment further on Report.
This concern is shared not just by hon. Members but by the industry as a whole through representations from organisations including, but not limited to, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the Scottish White Fish Producers Association. The amendment addresses the timing of when we extricate ourselves from the influence of the common fisheries policy. Of course, we actually leave the common fisheries policy when we leave the EU. That is always what was promised, but because of the implementation period we will find ourselves under the influence of the CFP.
The Minister will be aware that, along with hon. Members from other coastal constituencies, I made representations, initially proposed by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, at the start of the year that the impact of any transition period on fisheries should extend only nine months from Brexit date—to the end of 2019. In March this year, the intention to have a 21-month implementation period was announced. Given that this was an additional 12 months over what was proposed as a compromise, it was greeted with disappointment in fishing communities. However, it has been understood and broadly accepted on the basis that the final prize of being out of the CFP and being an independent coastal state was still very much in play, and that the EU itself would not accept fisheries being cherry-picked out of the implementation period. I leave aside for the purpose of this discussion the EU’s subsequent attempts to do that very thing—to cherry-pick fisheries and other aspects of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. That is for another discussion.
The industry was encouraged by and supportive of the White Paper, in no small part due to the repeated mentions of December 2020 as the moment we would take our place as an independent coastal state. However, that date is not reflected in the Bill. Amendment 1 seeks to put that date in the Bill, or at least to secure an assurance, which I invite the Minister to provide, that our exit from the influence of the CFP will be time-limited.
Alan Brown
The hon. Gentleman said that amendment 1 was a probing amendment and that this was not quite the right time to put the date in statute. When will be the right time? What will have changed by the time we get to Report to make such an amendment the right one?
David Duguid
I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to the amendment. As the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Committee know, a lot is happening—or not happening—at the moment, so we need to see what comes out of the next few weeks. I would be grateful if the Minister provided whatever assurance he can at this stage about how the Government will ensure that the CFP no longer applies to our fishermen beyond December 2020.
George Eustice
Both amendments seek to achieve the same purpose, which is effectively to make it harder to extend the implementation period beyond December 2020, as currently provided for in the withdrawal agreement. Underlying the amendments is the clear sentiment in the fishing industry, on which I think there is almost cross-party consensus, that we cannot get out of the EU fast enough. The common fisheries policy has been a disaster—we do not get a fair share of stocks—so it is entirely understandable that the fishing industry and others would like us to become an independent coastal state with our own seat at the table, negotiating our own fisheries resources and getting a fairer share of the total allowable catch, as soon as possible.
We currently envisage the implementation period running until the end of 2020. As we discussed earlier, in the event that we are unable to conclude a future partnership with the EU during that implementation period, and that that is apparent by July 2020, the Government will have a choice of one of two options. If we have made good progress and are close to getting a new agreement in place, there will be an opportunity to extend the implementation period. That might be for just a few months to ensure that things can be put in place. If, however, the Government judged that the prospects of getting a future partnership were low—or the prospects of getting one in the foreseeable future were low—they could opt to embrace the so-called Northern Ireland protocol backstop.
Alan Brown
Is what the Minister says not completely contrary to the answers he gave about new clause 22? He said the new clause would stop us being in a backstop position—it would override that—but now he says, “We can’t accept this date because there’s the potential of the backstop and extending the implementation period.”
George Eustice
New clause 22 applies explicitly in the case of our creating a new partnership—not extending the implementation period, not falling into the backstop, but actually having a new partnership. It prevents the Government from making concessions on fisheries for other advances elsewhere. That is the point. It is separate—it addresses the third option, where we get what we are aiming for, which is an agreement.
Alan Brown
Equally, in his answers to questions about new clause 22, the Minister said it was all about being outside the common fisheries policy, so why not accept a date?
George Eustice
Amendments 1 and 35 are not about our future economic partnership, which is a separate concern that we have addressed elsewhere—obviously the withdrawal agreement has its complexities. If in July 2020 we face either a short extension of the implementation period or going into the backstop, the Government will have a choice.
George Eustice
I will give way in a moment, but I want to clarify a point that I made earlier about tariffs, because I know that it raised eyebrows. The position is that if there is not a fisheries agreement, and if the backstop applies, there will indeed be tariffs on fisheries and agriculture products. However, special arrangements would be made to ensure that Northern Ireland vessels that land in Northern Ireland—and only Northern Ireland vessels that land in Northern Ireland—would not have to pay tariffs, although tariffs would apply to fish moved from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. I thought I should take the opportunity to correct the record because my earlier description was less comprehensive than it should have been, although elements of it were correct.
Mr Carmichael
“Less comprehensive than it should have been” is a very nice way of describing it. Should I take it from what the Minister says that, of the two options he describes, the backstop rather than an extended transition period would be preferable for the fishing industry?
George Eustice
From the very narrow perspective of the fishing industry, that is almost certainly the case. In the backstop, we would have complete control of our waters, whereas if the implementation period were extended, the current rules would continue to apply.
Mr Carmichael
How likely does the Minister think it that when the Cabinet comes to consider the position, as it will almost certainly have to at some point, the fishing industry will have its way against the other considerations under discussion?
George Eustice
Highly likely. One thing I can tell hon. Members is that the Prime Minister has absolutely championed fisheries throughout the negotiations. Indeed, that is the reason for the amendments that we have made and the reason why the withdrawal agreement made none of the concessions on fisheries that several people had anticipated. It was a clear red line that the Government held to.
Mr Carmichael
In saying that the Prime Minister has championed the fishing industry throughout the negotiations, the Minister is being a little less comprehensive than he might be. May I remind him that it was the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) who agreed to the industry’s being put into the transitional arrangements? If she had been championing it at that point, that would never have happened.
George Eustice
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I strongly disagree. I was involved in the final run-up to the withdrawal agreement. Of course there was pressure from the EU to give undertakings on access, but we refused to give any such undertakings. I believe that the agreement we have will be absolutely right for the fishing industry.
Mr Carmichael
If the Minister is right about that, why were Ministers, especially the Prime Minister, still making the promise until a couple of weeks before it was eventually sold out?
George Eustice
Both the Secretary of State and I argued clearly and strongly—and the Prime Minister shared our view—that it would have been preferable for fisheries not to be covered by the implementation period. We do not necessarily think that that was even necessary, but ultimately the transition period is a short one that lasts only until the end of December 2020. In the interests of an orderly Brexit, it was a concession that had to be made to get an implementation period for the short term. When it comes to our long-term partnership, we have been absolutely clear that we will make no such concessions.
Let me return to the amendments. Their impact would clearly be to make it rather more difficult for the Government to choose a course of action that extended the implementation period; indeed, that is probably the intention behind them. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, asked how that could be undone. As with the previous amendment, it would require primary legislation. Things can always be undone, but that would need a Bill with parliamentary support, so it would not be easy to remove such a provision.
Luke Pollard
The fishing industry is known for its plain talking and I think that many people watching this sitting will be confused as to the Minister’s choice of words. May I invite him to express himself in plain English, so that the entire industry can see that he is basically hedging his bets? Is that his message—that the industry should not take solace in the idea that the provisions will be delivered on that date?
George Eustice
That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that the amendment is unnecessary because we are confident that we will get a withdrawal agreement with the European Union. I am confident that will take effect before the end of the implementation period, and therefore I am confident that we will be negotiating as an independent coastal state in December 2020.
In so far as some people may have some doubt about the nature of the withdrawal agreement and what type of arrangement we might finally get with the European Union, my message is this: let us see what happens in January. Those events will transpire before this Bill returns on Report, at which stage we will be in a more informed position to make a judgement on such amendments. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will keep their powder dry and consider this matter at a future date.
I do not know how many people are watching this sitting, but if there are many of them, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has said, I am delighted that there is such interest in this vital industry and in our taking back control of our own waters.
Mr Carmichael
If we ever make kicking the can down the road an Olympic sport, Ministers in this Government would win gold, silver and bronze virtually in perpetuity.
First, let me say that I do not doubt for a second the Minister’s commitment to our fishing industry. That is why I am keen that we get him out to Brussels tonight to do the year-end negotiation. However, whatever words were coming out of his mouth, his body language was slightly different, and I think that the confidence that he speaks of is not actually met, and is certainly not matched, in the industry.
I pushed the Minister with a number of interventions in the course of his speech, not just because it was entertaining sport, although it undoubtedly is and can be, but because I wanted members of the Committee to see the position that the Government are in—the whole series of contradictions and broken promises that have brought us to this stage.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that his is a probing amendment. That matters, because if he were to vote with us—presuming that every Opposition member of the Committee were to support my amendment—the proposed date would go in the Bill. On the question of jam tomorrow, if, as the Minister says, there is a different situation come January, it would be open to the Government to table amendments on Report and change the date back again, or they could propose a different date, whatever that would be.
The amendment would send a greatly reassuring signal to the industry that it was being listened to and that its concerns were being acted on, and that the Government were not going to simply take things on trust. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, who added his name to a virtually identical amendment, has the opportunity to deliver that and make the change. It is for him to decide. He is ultimately accountable to his constituents; we are all accountable to our constituents. It is for him to decide whether he takes the assurances from the Minister, given all their various inconsistencies and contradictions. For that reason, I will not withdraw my amendment but press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
George Eustice
Clauses 39 to 43 will come into force on the day on which the Act is passed. Those are the later parts of the Bill. As we have discussed today, most of the Bill’s provisions will come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may make them by regulations. Different days may be appointed for different purposes. Hon. Members will understand that the Bill contains a broad range of purposes. That is why we believe it is important to have that flexibility to commence different parts of the Bill at different times.
David Duguid
Before the Minister finishes, I want to take the opportunity to thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for tempting me with the opportunity to do what might have seemed a slick and easy solution to the issue that we discussed at some length. As the Minister has already said, there is a lot going on just now. I will not let this go—
George Eustice
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan makes an important point. The provisions in clause 42 are set out as they for a good reason, which is that we need flexibility in subsection (3) to ensure we can commence different parts of the Bill at different times.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Short title
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Luke Pollard
The Minister could have called this the sustainable fisheries Bill. That missed opportunity could have been reflected in the short title. It would have sent a strong message to the industry and to all those people in fisheries that we will create a sustainable fishery after Brexit. That could have been put on the face of the Bill, but as the Opposition are not allowed to table amendments to a short title, we were unable to do that.
Mr Carmichael
Given the refusal to include commitments to the principle of maximum sustainable yield or the multiple amendments that Opposition Members have tabled—all of which have been rebuffed by the Minister and the Government—does the hon. Gentleman not think that the Government have got the title right?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman steals my final line. We would have tabled an amendment, but we needed to make sure that the content was right. As such, we cannot do anything with it, so I will sit down.
The Chair
We would all have done many things in different times, I am sure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Iain Stewart.)
Fisheries Bill (Tenth_PART2 sitting)
Monday 17th December 2018
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 View all Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 December 2018 - (17 Dec 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 5 essentially addresses an inconsistency between the devolution settlements for Wales and for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Unlike the devolution settlements for Scotland and Northern Ireland, the National Assembly for Wales does not currently have legislative competence in relation to fisheries in the offshore area, although it already has executive competence for those areas. The Bill, combined with our withdrawal from the European Union, will mean that the devolved Administrations will have more powers than ever before, and we believe it is right for this modification to be made so that the Welsh Government can exercise their legislative competence as set out in the Bill.
The new clause, therefore, will enable the Assembly to make primary legislation on fishing, fisheries and fish health for the whole Welsh zone. The Welsh offshore region is the area of sea outside the territorial sea—that is, beyond 12 nautical miles from the coast, but within the exclusive economic zone. It is a relatively small area, stretching at its greatest extent to 30 nautical miles from the coast of Wales. Without this new clause, the National Assembly for Wales could not make its own primary legislation relating to fisheries in the Welsh offshore region and the management of fisheries in Welsh waters would be more piecemeal and less effective.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
There are a couple of points I want to make on this new clause. I understand that the Welsh Labour Government have raised concerns with the Government regarding the National Assembly’s legislative competence for fisheries matters beyond Welsh inshore waters. The Welsh Government are seeking to bring the National Assembly’s competence in line with Welsh Ministers’ Executive competence, which would make the introduction of a pan-UK framework less complex. The Minister’s letter to the Committee about new clause 5 explained that this is designed to address the need for an extension to the Welsh Government’s legislative competence to bring Wales in line with Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Can the Minister formally confirm for the record that new clause 5 adequately addresses the issues raised by the Welsh Government regarding the Bill, and that they have been consulted on and have agreed to the terms of new clause 5? Can he also explain why this issue was not addressed at an earlier stage, so that the Bill could be introduced in a more complete form? Furthermore, I understand that the Welsh Government have also raised concerns in relation to clause 18 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Can the Minister tell the Committee when discussions on those issues will be concluded, and whether he plans to table further amendments to deal with them during the Bill’s progress?
George Eustice
I can indeed confirm that we have developed the new clause in conversation with the Welsh Government. It was a specific request that they made after the Bill had been published and as it approached Second Reading, and we needed to go through the Government write-round process to get agreement to make the change. Obviously, there was earlier legislation as recently as two years ago in which Executive competence was given to the Welsh Government. At that point, they did not ask for legislative competence; I think everybody can agree that that was probably an oversight at the time and it is now important that they have that legislative competence. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that this amendment, as drafted, enables the Welsh Government to have the legislative competence that they seek, that it has been developed in discussion with them and that it therefore addresses their concerns in that regard.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 22
Fisheries agreement between the UK and the EU
“(1) This section applies if—
(a) the United Kingdom and the EU enter into a withdrawal agreement, and
(b) pursuant to that agreement, the Secretary of State enters into negotiations with the EU, on behalf of the United Kingdom, for an agreement about the management of shared stocks (a ‘fisheries agreement’).
(2) The Secretary of State must pursue the following two objectives when negotiating a fisheries agreement.
(3) The first objective is that the agreement should provide for annual negotiations to determine fishing opportunities.
(4) The second objective is that the agreement should have the effect that Union fishing boats are not granted access to UK waters in any year unless the fishing opportunities for that year that are available for distribution by the United Kingdom are (looked at in the round) greater than those that would have been so available under relative stability.
(5) The reference in subsection (4) to the fishing opportunities for any year that would have been available for distribution by the United Kingdom “under relative stability” is to the fishing opportunities that would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, have been so available for that year under the common fisheries policy, were the United Kingdom still a member of the EU.
(6) In this section—
‘exclusive economic zone’ has the meaning given by Part 5 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (Cmnd 8941);
“fishing opportunities” means—
(a) the maximum quantities of shared stocks of particular descriptions that may be caught annually in particular areas within UK and Union waters, and
(b) the maximum number of days that fishing boats may spend at sea annually, in particular areas within UK and Union waters, fishing for particular descriptions of shared stocks;
‘shared stocks’ means stocks of sea fish which are found—
(a) in waters within the exclusive economic zone of the United Kingdom, and
(b) in waters within the exclusive economic zone of a member State;
‘UK waters’ means waters within British fishery limits;
‘Union fishing boat’ means a fishing vessel flying the flag of a member State and registered in the EU;
‘Union waters’ has the meaning given by Article 4 of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation;
‘withdrawal agreement’ means an agreement setting out the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU in the terms (or essentially in the terms) endorsed by the meeting of the European Council held on 25 November 2018.”—(George Eustice.)
This new clause would require the Government, when negotiating an agreement with the EU about fisheries, to pursue the objectives that fishing opportunities should be subject to annual negotiation, and that the UK should receive more fishing opportunities than it does under the common fisheries policy.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
Sea Fish Industry Authority: powers in relation to parts of UK etc.
“(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 2(1) (duties of the Authority)—
(a) after the third “of” insert, “(amongst other things)”,
(b) delete the words “as a whole”.
(3) After section 3 (powers of the Authority), insert—
“3A Exercise of functions in relation to different parts of the UK etc.
The Authority may exercise its functions separately and differently in relation to—
(a) the sea fish industry in different parts of the United Kingdom,
(b) sea fish and sea fish products landed in different parts of the United Kingdom,
(c) sea fish and sea fish products trans-shipped in different parts of the sea within British fishery limits adjacent to different parts of the United Kingdom.
3B Delegation of functions
(1) The Authority may authorise any other person to exercise on its behalf such of its functions and to such extent as it may determine.
(2) The Authority may give to any person authorised under this section to exercise any of its functions—
(a) financial assistance (by way of loan, grant or guarantee),
(b) other assistance including assistance by way of the provision of property, staff or services, for the purposes of those functions.
(3) The giving of authority under this section to exercise a function does not—
(a) affect the Authority’s responsibility for the exercise of the function, or
(b) prevent the Authority from exercising the function itself.”.
(4) In section 11 (accounts and reports), after subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) The report must include details of how income received from levies imposed under section 4 has been applied in the financial year in respect of each part of the United Kingdom by the Authority in exercising its functions including in particular details, in respect of each part of the United Kingdom, of how the income has been applied by the Authority in—
(a) promoting the efficiency of the sea fish industry in that part,
(b) promoting the marketing and consumption of, and the export of, sea fish and sea fish products relating to that part.”.
(5) In schedule 1 (the Sea Fish Industry Authority), in paragraph 16—
(a) before sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(A1) The Authority must appoint a committee for the purpose of assisting the Authority in the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland.
(A2) The committee is to consist of or include persons who are not members of the Authority.
(A3) The Authority must consult the committee on the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland.”,
(b) in sub-paragraph (1), before “committees” insert “other”,
(c) in sub-paragraph (2), for “such committees” substitute “committees appointed under this paragraph”.”—(Brendan O'Hara.)
This new clause would give the Sea Fish Industry Authority greater flexibility to exercise its functions separately and differently in different parts of the UK. It would also require Seafish to report how income received from the levies it imposes has been applied in respect of each part of the United Kingdom.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I rise to speak to new clause 1, which has been tabled in my name and in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock).
It has been a long-held view of the Scottish Government, and, indeed, of many in the sector, that Seafish, because of the way it is currently constituted, is not sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of the entire sector and requires radical reform. Many have made the case that there is an inherent flaw in Seafish attempting to represent all of the UK while operating in an area in which policy is devolved. In trying to represent the whole of the UK fishing industry, Seafish is viewed by many as providing insufficient support to the sector in Scotland, which all too often results in the poor or unsatisfactory marketing and promotion of Scottish seafood.
The main objective of the new clause is to devolve both the control over funding and the Executive powers of Seafish to Scottish Ministers. It would also devolve control of the Scottish aspects of the fishing levy, giving Scotland a key role in deciding how the Scottish share of the fishing levy should be spent. We believe that this new model will provide much greater flexibility for Seafish to exercise its functions separately and differently in the different parts of the UK. The new clause would also require Seafish to report the income it receives from the levies it imposes and how those are applied in each part of the United Kingdom.
As I have often said in Committee, not only is fishing devolved but there is absolutely no standardised version of the fishing industry across the UK. From Truro to Thurso and beyond, it is multi-layered, complex and nuanced, and is often very localised. Given that there is no one single fishing industry pursuing a common set of clear, shared objectives, it is surely ludicrous that we still have a one-size-fits-all fishing authority charged with securing a sustainable, profitable future for all parts of the seafood industry. How can Seafish practically offer regulatory guidance and service to the industry—including catching, aquaculture, processors, importers, exporters and distributors of seafood—as well as looking after restaurants and retailers in such a complicated and differentiated industry?
This is not an attack on Seafish or the people who work there. Rather, it is recognising that, with an aggregated coastline of almost 20,000 miles containing a host of different fishing practices and interests, it is in an almost impossible situation in trying to work in the best interests of everyone.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I have made the same point as the hon. Gentleman often enough myself. However, the industry in Scotland surely encompasses the full range of practices that he identifies across the whole of the United Kingdom. How would devolution help to address that?
Brendan O'Hara
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I represent a west coast constituency and he represents a northern isles constituency, which are vastly different from that represented by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. It is about devolving power to as local a level as one possibly can. If Scottish Ministers are given the power to act on behalf of a much smaller area and a much smaller concentration of the industry, I think it will much better serve the industry as a whole across Scotland.
The Bill gives us the perfect opportunity to reform the current system to ensure that that levy can be better used to promote the range and quality of Scottish seafood, both at home and abroad. If Scotland were allowed to take these investment decisions, it would allow us to properly support the industry by promoting the quality and excellence of Scottish seafood products, both at home and across the world. It would also allow us to maximise the benefits of Scottish provenance, which is so important when marketing ourselves, particularly abroad, while supplying top-quality products to consumers.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Labour party fully supports the new clause, which seems like a sensible measure that would allow for a degree of variation in the way that the Sea Fish Industry Authority operates in different parts of the UK to reflect the fact that every part of the UK has a distinctive fishing industry that reflects its local circumstances, as the hon. Gentleman said. The new clause also requires Seafish to report on how the income received from the levies it imposes has been applied in each part of the United Kingdom. Again, that seems like a sensible suggestion to ensure that there is transparency in the way in which the levy is applied in each part of the UK. Therefore, we will support the new clause.
George Eustice
We disagree with the new clause and think that it is unnecessary. The issue of Seafish and the seafood levy was looked at in detail as part of the Smith Commission recommendations as recently as 2014. The new clause would go beyond what that commission recommended, which was that the power to impose levies should not be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
However, we have taken account of some of the issues raised by the Scottish Government and by Richard Lochhead, the Minister at the time. In response, as well as having permanent Scottish representatives on its main board, Seafish established a separate Seafish Scottish advisory committee early this year to advise the board on how the levy should be invested in Scotland. The Scottish industry is also well represented in the sector panels that advise on Seafish’s UK priorities, as I have said.
In 2011, a consultation on the Sea Fish Industry Authority’s regional structures showed little industry support for the kind of devolution of the levy that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute outlines. Indeed, just 20% of stakeholders supported such a model. A Scotland-focused levy would reduce Seafish’s overall ability to carry out its UK-wide priorities. It would reduce economies of scale and potentially cut across some of our other approaches as a UK-wide entity.
The levy setting already requires the consent of all the devolved Administrations. Periodically, when we want to review the levies, we have a discussion with the Scottish Government about exactly what they should be. There are arguments about which should go up and which should go down, but we have achieved unanimous agreement that we should make the levy change only once, so I do not accept that Scotland does not have sufficient influence at the moment.
Seafish publishes an annual report that sets out in great detail all its activities and funding, how it operates and what its priorities are. I therefore do not believe that we need additional requirements in that regard, since it is already done.
Mr Carmichael
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute for tabling the new clause, because it is an important topic to discuss and there is no doubt that our current system is capable of improvement. I sound a couple of notes of caution, however, in relation to the proposal for devolution.
We risk breaking up the support that is available by geography rather than by sector. The inshore fishermen in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, who are catching nephrops, langoustines and others, probably have a fairly strong community of interests with those who are catching in the Irish sea and in the south-west.
Likewise there will be a community of interest in the other sectors, such as the pelagic sector at the other end of the country, the white fish sector and so on. Although I would never close the door on that sort of thing, from my experience, I would require a bit more persuasion that the industry wants or is asking for that kind of reform.
Brendan O'Hara
The Minister said that this issue was talked about in 2014. I think he would agree—I suspect that no one would disagree—that in politics 2014 seems a long time ago and much has changed.
I appreciate the support from the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, who talked about transparency, and he is absolutely right. In response to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, it is really important that this new clause is seen as a genuine attempt to improve Seafish. We are not seeking to undermine Seafish; we are seeking to improve how it works and how it can work best for the multitude of Scottish fishing industries. I agree that there is a community of interest, particularly in Northern Ireland, but that community of interest will be severely undermined by the imposition of the backstop that we talked about earlier this evening.
This change would work because it would allow a Scottish Seafish to promote all Scottish seafish across both coasts and the northern isles, and it could work. At the moment, Seafish does not work well for Scotland.
Mr Carmichael
I just want to tease out the issues here a little bit. I ask this question in a spirit of genuine inquiry, because I do not know the answer to it, but I would think that a lot of the inshore boats—the foreign boats in particular—around the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and certainly on the Clyde will fish as far down as the Isle of Man and around there, so what, in this context, actually constitutes “Scottish seafish”?
Brendan O'Hara
One would presume that it is where the catch is landed, or where the boat is registered. So when a boat comes back to Tarbert, or Oban, or the right hon. Gentleman’s home island of Islay, that would constitute “Scottish seafood”. I do not need to tell him how important that Scottish provenance is and how important it is to get those langoustines to Madrid or Paris as quickly as we possibly can. If we have an organisation that is at front and centre about Scottish provenance, I think that would certainly be a step in the right direction.
As I say, I do not think that Seafish is working particularly well for Scotland at the moment and that is something we have to address. So, with your permission, Mr Gray, I will push this new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I bet you are delighted to be here in the final sitting tonight; the rest of the House has probably adjourned.
The new clause would ensure that the vital contribution that is made by the current European Maritime and Fisheries Fund to support sustainable growth in Scottish fisheries and aquaculture, inland waters, the seafood supply chain, conservation of the marine environment, and growth in jobs in coastal communities will be maintained in the future.
However, I must also add that the UK Government should be doing more to assess future opportunities such as rejuvenating coastal communities, and identify where infrastructure and subsequent funding might be required to maximise those opportunities. That would result in a bottom-up and needs-based approach that would lead to the establishment of a proper fund and the associated long-term planning. If we are to achieve the nirvana of catching more fish, landing them in Scottish and UK ports and processing them, further investment will clearly be required. The replacement EMFF would be an ideal vehicle for investment leverage.
Devolution is key here. We cannot possibly allow a repeat of DEFRA stealing the £160 million convergence uplift that is due to Scottish farmers—a redistribution that could have significant effects on future funding to farmers once historical payments are taken into account under any new UK scheme. Scotland currently receives 44% of EMFF moneys; that is obviously way higher than the pro rata figure per head of population, but it makes sense given the demographics of the fishing industry. I must put it on the record that there is no way we would ever countenance any future funding being allocated on a Barnett basis.
The situation appears even more stark when we look at the 2017 industry figures: 55% of employment in the sector overall, 58% of fishing industry employment and 75% of aquaculture industry employment are in Scotland. Scotland also accounts for 50% of fish processing, 67% of landings in the over-10-metre sector and 32% of landings in the under-10-metre sector. In a devolved context, it therefore makes sense that post Brexit, as an absolute minimum, the same allocation be made to the Scottish Government in the interest of effective distribution. Indeed, from the statistics I have cited, there is a clear case that Scotland should have further funding. I certainly would not want to see that happen to the detriment of other communities in the UK, but at the very minimum we should receive the equivalent of what we get now.
Mr Sweeney
I support new clause 2, which is a frankly common-sense measure. It is imperative that, as a result of the UK leaving the European Union, the industry must have both the certainty and the financial underpinning that it requires. The new clause would ensure that, so surely it must appeal to Government Members who want to provide such certainty. I appeal particularly to Scottish Conservatives present, who surely want to uphold the interests of Scottish fisheries. Here is a real test of whether they are part of Team Ruth or Team May: will they uphold the interests of the Scottish fisheries?
The removal of the EMFF presents a significant challenge across industry in Scotland. My own experience—
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the announcement made recently—last weekend, I think—about funding in the implementation period. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will probably also appreciate, it was not Barnettised; I think the overall figure was £32.7 million, with £16.4 million going to Scotland. Does the hon. Member for Glasgow North East welcome that?
Mr Sweeney
All I am looking for is a simple guarantee that there will be no financial detriment to Scottish fisheries. If you can encourage your colleague the Minister—
Mr Sweeney
Sorry, Mr Gray. If the hon. Gentleman can encourage his colleague the Minister to stand up and give that assurance, we will all be very happy and so will Scottish fisheries. That is all we are looking for—not smoke and mirrors or absolute figures cited in isolation, but an absolute guarantee that there will be no financial detriment as a result of this change.
As I was saying, there is a challenge facing the whole of Scottish industry because we are not sure what the so-called shared prosperity fund will look like. It will replace several models of European funding—including regional selective assistance, which I know from my former role at Scottish Enterprise was a crucial tool for promoting industrial development in Scotland—so we have to be very certain that there will be no financial detriment to industry as a result. An assurance to that effect would be welcomed by Scottish industry, including the fishing industry.
It is incumbent on the Minister to support the new clause because it would provide that degree of certainty. I thought that that was what the Conservative party was all about: providing certainty to business and allowing enterprise to flourish. Is that not music to your ears? I think you ought to stand here—
Mr Sweeney
Sorry, Mr Gray—it is rather late and I am forgetting my pronouns. I think they ought to stand here and support the new clause.
Mr Carmichael
I have essentially reached the same conclusion as the two previous speakers, for slightly different reasons. The EMFF money has been of massive significance to the industry and to communities around the UK coastline. I support some sort of guarantee that that money will continue to go to our fishing industries and communities. The amendment deals, of course, only with guaranteeing that the money will continue to go to Scotland, but it would be unthinkable that the same would not then apply to fishing communities in Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, England. I would not start from this position; but ultimately, from the point of view of the industry in the communities, I think the amendment would get us to where we need to be. For that reason I support it.
George Eustice
I disagree with putting a provision of this nature in the Bill, for reasons I shall explain. It is very important with legislation to separate the legal powers that we seek, to engage in such activities as giving financial assistance to the fishing industry, from the way those obligations are funded. That is, and always has been, predominantly a matter for the spending review. Such a provision would be unhelpful.
As to the legal powers, we have set out in clause 28, for England, the legal powers we need to make grant payments; so we are not, as was suggested, relying on some shared prosperity fund. There will be bespoke grants for the fishing industry, and we set out the powers to do that for England in clause 28. Clause 28(8) sets out the fact that there will under schedule 4 be similar powers for the Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments.
Ironically, at the time the Bill was drafted and on Second Reading, the Scottish Government told us they did not want the powers; so I put it to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute that before the Scottish Government start to say that we must guarantee the money, they should work out how they will guarantee how they will get the legal powers to pay any money out in the first place. They are now asking us whether we may be able to make amendments later, to include those powers.
At the moment there is clearly a gap in the Bill, but that is a consequence of the position that the Scottish Government have adopted, so that they do not have the legal powers to make any grant payments.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister said earlier that the money should come through the spending review, as has long been the case. The EMFF funds have never been part of the spending review; he should know that. The amendment would guarantee the money as a funding stream for the future. What guarantees are there for that funding stream in clause 28?
George Eustice
EMFF comes from the EU budget and is part of the EU’s budget when it is set. It is typically set for a period of five years and is reviewed periodically. As recently as 10 December, the Secretary of State announced that the Government will put in place new domestic long-term arrangements for post-2021, which will enable us to create schemes similar to the EMFF in each of the four Administrations. In addition, he announced an extra £37.2 million of funding to boost the existing EMFF programme, to help the fishing industry prepare for the opportunities coming its way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan pointed out.
I do not, therefore, believe that the new clause is necessary or appropriate. We have demonstrated, as recently as last week, our commitment to funding fisheries in the future. The Bill makes explicit provision for grants to be made in three of the four Administrations and I would simply say that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun should first consider obtaining the legal powers.
Luke Pollard
In response to an earlier intervention from the hon. Member for Stafford the Minister set a baseline, effectively, on relative stability—about what that meant. Is not it appropriate that there is also a baseline set on funding shares, which is effectively what the amendment says—so that no pennies are lost for Scotland or, indeed, any other part of the UK? Is not that a key attribute, which should be embedded, to follow the logic of what the Minister said to one of his hon. Friends?
George Eustice
I do not think it is the same logic at all. That was a different clause, addressing a different issue—a negotiation with the European Union or a bilateral negotiation with a different country. It was not at all about a collective position that a Government might take with the Treasury. That is different. The Treasury might sometimes adopt positions that not everyone would agree with, but it is certainly not a foreign country; it is part of the Government. For all those reasons I oppose new clause 2 and I hope the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will withdraw it and perhaps consider what might be done on Report to ensure that Scotland has the legal powers it needs to do this.
Mr Sweeney
Even though the new clause may not succeed, it would be worthwhile as a matter of record if the Minister could provide assurances to the industry that it is the Government’s intent that there should be no financial detriment as a result of the changes to the EMFF and the transition to the new financial frameworks that may supersede it.
George Eustice
I think we have demonstrated our intent in the announcements we have made just in the last week that there will be new schemes to replace the EMFF, and the fact that the current scheme will be boosted by £37 million. I oppose new clause 2.
The Chair
Mr Lefroy, you look as though you are trying to get my attention, or the Minister’s attention. If you wish to speak, you can just stand up.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Gray; I was not sure whether I could come in once the Minister had finished. The new clause comes to an important point regarding both fisheries and agriculture. Until now we have had one line on the budget, something like £8 billion to £10 billion a year net, that we have been paying to the European Union. That includes subsidies in fisheries, agriculture and many other areas, such as regional funds. All those budget lines will now be on the national budget, and they will not be guaranteed in the same way that they were before, through the mechanisms of the common agricultural policy or the common fisheries policy.
I think there is a justifiable concern across the fisheries sector and across the agricultural sector that, because these budget lines will now be subject to Treasury action—hopefully positive Treasury action, but not necessarily—there will therefore potentially not be the same kind of long-term commitment to fisheries and agricultural funding that we see under the CFP and CAP. Would the Minister very kindly give us some fairly strong reassurances on the record about the Government’s intentions on fisheries funding for the medium to long term, and not just in the short term? Obviously the CAP is ultra vires here.
George Eustice
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I understand his anxiety; this is the first time in half a century that we are taking control of these policies. I will simply say that the point he raises could be applied to any other area of Government spending. We could argue that there is no guarantee that we will increase spending on the national health service or on schools, and yet we do, because of political pressure brought to bear by hon. Members on both sides of the House, not least on this side. Of course, it is always open to hon. Members, if there is a Budget put forward on the Floor of the House with which they disagree and which does not contain the elements they seek, to vote it down. When we leave the European Union, new checks and balances will come in, and those checks and balances will be the opinion of hon. Members such as him, not the European Union.
Jeremy Lefroy
My hon. Friend is right, but he knows perfectly well that we are not the Bundestag, where they go through budgets line by line; in this House it is in effect an all or nothing thing. Nobody is going to put a Budget in jeopardy over an area such as fisheries, which—absolutely vital though it is—is a relatively small part of the Budget. That points to a real problem that relatively small areas of public expenditure, which are nevertheless extremely important, have in the way we deal with budgets.
George Eustice
I understand that point, but conversely, one could say that the DEFRA budget is small compared with other Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions or the Department of Health and Social Care. Big changes to our budget actually make a small difference to the overall maths, so far as the Treasury is concerned, so that argument can be made either way.
As I said earlier, we also have the levies, charges and tender incomes referred to in earlier clauses. I gave an undertaking that, on Report, we will seek to give more clarity to hon. Members about how those funds might be deployed to support our fishing objectives.
Alan Brown
The Minister is optimistic about the future prospects and in thinking that I will withdraw the new clause. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East for their contributions.
I think the hon. Member for Stafford actually made the point for me when he expressed his concerns, and looked for reassurances from the Minister, that the money will go to the Treasury. Frankly, I do not trust the Treasury. I say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that at one point there was a £1 billion fund for carbon capture and storage that looked like it was going to go to Peterhead, but the Treasury overrode the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and withdrew the funding. That is the problem with funding reviews by the Treasury: it can put a red pen through the funding at any time it likes. The Treasury holds the purse strings.
David Duguid
The general point that I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to make is that, while we are in the EU, we get the EMFF. However, does he accept that there is no guarantee of that same level of EMFF funding for member states in the future?
Alan Brown
No, there is not. That will be part of the settlement with the EU. However, the point is that the Treasury will control the funding. It will come back to the UK Government, and we are asking for a guarantee of funding at least equivalent to EMFF. It will be in the gift of the UK Government to do that. That is the whole point of the new clause, and that is why I was drawing attention to the fact that no guarantees are given in the Bill; it is left to the Treasury and is therefore a risk.
The Minister made an argument about the legal powers. The Scottish Government obviously believe they have the legal powers to give the grants, but that is an argument for another day. That would not stop that money being guaranteed for Scotland. I take the point of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that other areas will want the same guarantees. That is fine. I touched on how, going forward, I would like to see Scotland get more funding, but not to the detriment of other fishing communities around the UK. With that, I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alan Brown
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will try to brief. The new clause would effectively devolve control of the Scottish aspect of levies imposed by Seafish to Scottish Ministers, ensuring that levies imposed on fish or fish products landed in Scotland, or trans-shipped in Scottish waters, require confirmation by Scottish Ministers. It would also mean that Scottish Ministers may, by order, increase the rate of such levies.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute touched on, it is a long-held view of the Scottish Government that the existing Seafish levy is not fit for purpose, providing inadequate support to the sector in Scotland, resulting in insufficient marketing and promotion of Scottish seafood. Levies should not be uniform across the UK and should be placed in the hands of devolved Ministers to determine best procedure and practice in their own nations and regions. This issue is similar to the red meat levy, which was also a long-running sore. The UK Government accepted changes to the Agriculture Bill to resolve that to the satisfaction of the Scottish Government. I hope the Minister will see fit to do likewise with these proposals.
Mr Sweeney
I support new clause 3, which seeks to devolve control of the Scottish aspects of levies imposed by Seafish to Scottish Ministers. Inter alia, it would require confirmation from Scottish Ministers for levies imposed in relation to fish or fish products landed in Scotland, or transhipped in Scottish waters, and allow Scottish Ministers to increase the rate of such levies by order.
It seems that the new clause makes sense and would allow Scottish Ministers to determine the rate of levy that best suits the industry in Scotland. The purpose of devolution is to allow for degrees of variance to best suit that country’s interests, and the new clause achieves that. We will support it.
George Eustice
As with the earlier amendments, I disagree with new clause 3. It goes beyond what was recommended by the Smith Commission, which looked at this issue as recently as 2014. There is no industry support for devolving the Seafish levies. Scottish Ministers already have responsibilities towards Seafish, including with regard to appointments to the board, which are agreed across all four Administrations of the UK. As I said earlier, there is already a Scottish advisory committee to Seafish. It is not appropriate to start to have different levies when parts of the fleet will land fish in different ports around the UK. That would create an unacceptable level of bureaucracy for a relatively small organisation such as Seafish.
Alan Brown
Did the Smith Commission really look at this and the likes of the red meat levy in detail? What recommendations did it make about the red meat levy?
George Eustice
It did look at the issue in detail. The then Scottish Minister, Richard Lochhead, made strong representations about it. In particular, I remember that he wanted to introduce a levy on salmon producers in Scotland. That was one of the thoughts behind the change that he advocated. Those suggestions were considered by the Smith Commission, but rejected. I believe that we should accept that decision, as it looked at the suggestions in detail, and I oppose new clause 3 for that reason.
Alan Brown
I was hoping for a more conciliatory tone from the Minister when I raised the example of the red meat levy, where the UK Government changes were very welcome.
George Eustice
The position with the red meat levy is different. Scotland and Wales feel that they do not get a fair share of the levy because the animals come from there and travel across the border to be slaughtered, and the levy is collected at the point of slaughter. That is not the case with the way that the seafood levy is collected. This is a different issue, about whether it is appropriate to devolve those particular levy charging functions. We do not believe it is.
Alan Brown
I take the Minister’s point about the geographical nature of the red meat levy, and there were concerns that my new clause was about only Scotland, so I accept that. Nevertheless, I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
New clause 8 relates to the West Lothian question set to fish, which we debated in some detail last Tuesday on amendments 15 to 19. I tabled the new clause as a probing amendment at that stage, and at this stage I do not wish to move it.
New Clause 11
Managing shared stocks
“(1) Where shared stocks of common interest are also exploited by other coastal states, the Secretary of State must engage with those states with a view to ensuring that—
(a) shared stocks are managed in accordance with the UK’s international law obligations and in accordance with the objectives of this Act;
(b) fishing mortality is below levels which will restore or maintain those shared stocks above levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield; and
(c) the impacts of fishing on the marine environment are avoided or, where avoidance is not possible, demonstrably minimised.
(2) The Secretary of State must endeavour to establish bilateral or multilateral agreements with other coastal states for the joint management of shared stocks of common interest.
(3) Where no formal agreement is reached, the Secretary of State must make every effort to reach common arrangements with other coastal states for fishing of shared stocks of common interest.
(4) Where neither a formal agreement nor a common arrangement is reached, the Secretary of State must—
(a) take all necessary steps to ensure that fishing of shared stocks of common interest is carried out such that the relevant stocks are maintained above levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield; and
(b) provide and make publicly available an annual report to the appropriate legislature outlining the steps taken pursuant to subsection (a) above.
(5) In setting total allowable catches in the UK exclusive economic zone for shared stocks of common interest, the Secretary of State may not increase the total allowable catch for any particular shared stock for UK fishing vessels apart from in the circumstances provided for in subsections (6) and (7).
(6) Where a coastal state with which a shared stock is jointly managed has reduced the total allowable catch available within its territory and—
(a) the Secretary of State is confident that this new total allowable catch will be complied with and enforced; and
(b) the coastal state consents to the UK increasing its total allowable catch,
then the Secretary of State may increase the UK total allowable catch by an amount not exceeding the amount by which the other coastal state has decreased its total allowable catch.
(7) Where the best available scientific advice on a shared stock confirms that fishing mortality of that stock can be increased without reducing the stock below a level capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield, then the Secretary of State may increase the UK total allowable catch in proportion to the change in recommend fishing mortality and the UK’s agreed share of total allowable catch for that stock.”.—(Mr Carmichael.)
The purpose of this amendment is to set clear sustainability criteria in relation to negotiations with other countries to ensure that a clear and robust process can be developed to prevent overfishing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Carmichael
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We come back almost full circle to how we deal with what are known as shared stocks. It is pretty clear that that is going to be a subject of some political and commercial significance when we move to the next stage of negotiations on the future relationship with our current EU neighbours.
We have observed a number of times that the principle of sustainability was front and centre in the White Paper when it was published, but somehow does not seem to have made the transition into the Bill. New clause 11 would put sustainability back into the Bill as it relates to our management of shared stocks. It seeks to give a framework under which we would seek to reach agreement with neighbouring countries, third countries and the EU. I would suggest that the principles are fairly straightforward and sound and that this is exactly the sort of thing that the Government should have in the Bill if it were to be, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport suggested earlier, a sustainable Fisheries Bill.
Luke Pollard
The Bill makes no firm commitment on how a shared stock should be sustainably managed, which was one reason why we spoke about shared stocks in the objectives right at the start of our consideration of the Bill. That is extremely concerning, as setting clear sustainability criteria in relation to negotiations with other countries would help to avoid, for example, another mackerel wars scenario.
However, I have some questions about subsection 6 of the new clause, in particular about its unintended consequences for the total allowable catch. It suggests that if, for any reason, a country reduced its allowable catch on sustainability grounds, the other countries in that shared stock would ramp up to get to the total allowable catch, which could have implications for sustainability. It would be interesting to know from the right hon. Gentleman how that might work and how he might allay any concerns on that point.
George Eustice
I do not agree with the new clause. It is unnecessary and could have unintended consequences.
As a country, we already have clear obligations under international law—under both the UN convention on the law of the sea and the UN fish stocks agreement—to co-operate on the management of shared stocks. That is an international obligation that we have as a signatory to both UNCLOS and the UNFSA. Notably, article 63 of UNCLOS requires the UK and all other signatories to
“seek, either directly or through appropriate subregional or regional organizations, to agree upon the measures necessary to coordinate and ensure the conservation and development of such stocks”.
Both UNCLOS and the UNFSA also contain obligations to achieve maximum sustainable yield.
I do not accept the analysis that there is nothing on sustainability in the Bill. Clause 1, right at the start of the Bill, contains a list of sustainability objectives, including a commitment to MSY and all the objectives that are currently written in the basic EU regulation on the common fisheries policy.
A more likely scenario is that other countries, whether that be Norway or the European Union, would choose to fish unsustainably. In the event that we could not get an agreement, the suggestion here is that we would still set our own catch well below that of other member states. Subsection (6) seems to suggest that other states might set their quota well below maximum sustainable yield, meaning that we could set it higher, provided we had the permission of other member states.
I am not sure what scenario the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland envisages. A more likely scenario is that the UK will insist on sustainable fishing, as we always have, since ours is the country that champions sustainable fishing more than any other, but another country might not agree to do so. If we could not get an agreement, that other country might fish unsustainably outside of an agreement.
Our remedy for that, as things stand, is to be very clear, as we were in our White Paper, that access to UK waters is conditional on other foreign countries fishing sustainably. We will have strong leverage to be able to say to our neighbours: “Unless you fish within an agreement and within levels that are sustainable, we will not grant you the access to our waters on which you depend.” That puts us in a strong position. The new clause seems to suggest that the UK is the country that will want to fish unsustainably while everybody else—our neighbours—are the good guys. I suspect the opposite will be the case, but we have other remedies to ensure that we can deliver sustainable fishing by our neighbouring countries.
For all those reasons, and because we already have legal commitments, including in clause 1, and to a joint fisheries statement, I oppose the new clause.
Mr Carmichael
It is a pity that the Minister’s appetite for declaratory clauses appears to have been sated by the introduction of new clause 22. I confess that I struggled to follow some of his reasoning. It comes to the point about subsection (6). Essentially, the Minister seems to be saying that we will behave in such a way that it is unnecessary for us to include the provision in the Bill, because those are our international obligations, although we are not expecting anybody else to follow their international obligations in the same way. I confess that I do not understand the logic of that.
However, having said that, the sustainability point remains. We know from experience of the common fisheries policy that, unless there are principles such as sustainability everywhere, Governments and fisheries managers are always very ingenious at finding ways not to follow them.
Given the lateness of the hour and the fact that we will probably want to return to this issue on Report with a broader audience, I am not minded to press for a Division at this stage, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Duty to ensure adequate monitoring and enforcement
“(1) The fisheries policy authorities must ensure that all fishing vessels fishing within British fishery limits and all UK vessels fishing both within and outside of British fishery limits must have installed on board a fully functioning device which allows that vessel to be automatically located and identified through the vessel monitoring system by transmitting position data at least every 20 minutes and sharing such position data with the relevant fisheries policy authorities.
(2) The fisheries policy authorities must ensure that all fishing vessels over ten metres length overall fishing within British fishery limits and all UK fishing vessels over ten metres length overall fishing within and outside of British fishery limits must have electronic monitoring equipment in order to—
(a) provide detailed and accurate documentation of all fishing activities, monitoring of compliance with fisheries and marine management measures and the ability to record levels of discarding, as well as details of catch of species, whether subject to catch quota or otherwise, and
(b) enable the estimation of the size and quantity of the marine biological resources taken or transported and to enable the identification, to the extent possible, of—
(i) the species of marine biological resources taken or transported;
(ii) the types and features of fishing gear used, and
(iii) any technical bycatch mitigation measures used.
(3) The fishery policy authorities must ensure that a comprehensive enforcement framework is developed in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, as amended from time to time.
(4) The fisheries policy authorities must by regulations make provision for any technical requirements necessary to implement this section.”—(Mr Carmichael.)
The purpose of this amendment is to strengthen the existing mechanisms for monitoring and control to help prevent illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. This includes requiring transmission of position data at least every 20 minutes and requiring electronic monitoring equipment on the majority of vessels capable of carrying such technology.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Carmichael
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a very much a probing new clause. There is little in the Bill—arguably nothing—that deals with monitoring and enforcement. This proposal, authored by Greener UK, is to have real-time reporting with technological devices and CCTV cameras. Those are live issues within the industry, and between industry scientists and conservationists. It is unfortunate that there is nothing at all in the Bill on the matter, so I have tabled the new clause to give the Minister an opportunity to explain what the Government will do about monitoring and enforcement, close to the implementation of the Bill.
Luke Pollard
We heard evidence on this subject from the director of the Marine Management Organisation, Phil Haslam, who said in relation to enforcement activities around fishing:
“The budget reduction since inception has been in the order of 60%”.––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, ; c. 50, Q101.]
That is simply unsustainable if we are to have properly enforced, well-protected and well-managed fisheries after Brexit. A number of concerns were voiced in the evidence sessions and since. We know that the number of hours of surveillance has dropped significantly since 2010, from 16,000 to just 2,000 now.
If we are to avoid a repetition of the scallop wars, but in UK rather than French waters, we need to ensure that we have sufficient levels of enforcement. It is good news that the Government have decided not necessarily to scrap all the Batch 1 River class offshore patrol vessels. That is a positive step forward, but there has still been no commitment on the number of hours those OPVs may be deployed for enforcement activity; there has just been a headline about their continued service, but with no certainty as to what that will mean.
We need to get much better on enforcement. There are serious concerns in the fishing industry about the focus on enforcement activities by UK ships enforcing in UK waters, which are targeting UK boats rather than foreign boats, which seem to have a lower standard when it comes to a number of different areas. The Government need to get better at enforcement, because the Opposition do not currently have confidence in their ability to enforce in our waters properly, especially when quota will be drawn down against our EU friends after Brexit, as we move from relative stability to zonal attachment. There are serious concerns about whether there is sufficient capacity within the enforcement branches of the Royal Navy’s fisheries squadron.
I will also press the Minister on what that means for inshore vessel monitoring systems. Earlier we asked whether EU boats should have the same requirements to obey the high safety standards and marine environmental protections. Can he confirm that all foreign boats will be required to have IVMS if they are in UK waters after Brexit, as that will help us in our enforcement activities?
George Eustice
I shall try to strike a more conciliatory tone in my response to this new clause, following the comments from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I believe that the new clause is unnecessary, although it does highlight an important issue: enforcement. The new clause duplicates existing legislation, including the so-called control regulation—Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009—which will be rolled forward into retained EU law. Therefore, the requirements for vessel monitoring systems and data transmission and the provision of information such as logbooks will continue to apply to any vessel fishing in our waters.
In addition, as I made clear earlier, DEFRA has recently consulted on extending VMS requirements to UK vessels under 12 metres in length. Work on this is at an advanced stage and we anticipate bringing forward the regulations next year. The UK also has obligations under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and the regulations on illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries, and that requires effective monitoring and enforcement in any event. Also, clause 31 enables the Secretary the State to make regulations to introduce further provisions pertaining to enforcement and control.
The shadow Minister questioned the capacity for enforcement. As we discussed earlier, the three existing fisheries patrol vessels will remain in service—the decision to decommission them has been delayed. In addition, four new offshore patrol vessels will come into service next year. Finally, we have been doing some work with the Border Force cutters, and four vessels operated by the Border Force are capable of doing fisheries work. We have been training Border Force personnel to do fisheries protection work. Finally, on top of all of that, we are in discussions with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on aerial surveillance, so there will be a substantial uplift in enforcement capacity.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport mentioned funding. That will depend on how much of that capacity we need according to the type of scenario. At this stage, the important thing is to ensure that all of the capacity is there. If we need to access it, we can do so very quickly.
Luke Pollard
Briefly, EU boats are currently required to have IVMS, but there is a data-sharing agreement between all EU member states. Will the Minister confirm that data sharing agreements are in place for IVMS on EU boats and the UK authorities after we leave the EU?
George Eustice
There will need to be an agreement on that, but obviously we have those data-sharing agreements with other neighbours, such as Norway, Iceland and the Faroes. In the absence of such an agreement, there will be no access whatsoever to European vessels. They will not be able to come into our waters unless they comply with our data requirements.
Mr Carmichael
The joy is matched by your own presence in the Chair, Mr Gray, I assure you.
The challenge was put down that we should have Home Office Ministers on our fishing boats. It seems that the best we are going to get is some Border Force officers on a fishing boat, and not necessarily in the circumstances that we might have voted on for the purpose that we were discussing.
I said at the start that the new clause was intended to be probing. I think that the Bill would benefit from the inclusion of provisions on enforcement and monitoring. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that. Otherwise, we might wish to return to the matter on Report. I am pretty certain that my noble friends will have an approach to this. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
To keep the Committee up to date, there is some confusion about new clause 25, which appears on the selection list in error. There will be no further debate on new clause 25, which has already been voted on in a group earlier today.
New Clause 14
Duty to co-operate
“(1) A fisheries policy authority must co-operate with other fisheries policy authorities in the preparation and application of the JFS and any SSFS, the licensing of fishing boats, enforcement against illegal fishing activity, the determination and distribution of fishing opportunities and the prevention of discards.
(2) A fisheries policy authority may share information with another fisheries policy authority for the purpose of discharging its duty under subsection (1).”—(Luke Pollard.)
This new clause would place a duty to co-operate on all fisheries policy authorities in carrying out their functions under this Bill; and would provide for the sharing of information between fisheries policy authorities.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The debate on new clause 25 was a good one, and we can always revisit it. This new clause is about the duty to co-operate. The Minister has already decided that there is no need for a dispute resolution mechanism in relation to the different national fishing authorities in preparing the joint fisheries statement, or the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement—a position that the Opposition disagreed with. In the event of not having a system for resolving disputes, it would be important to have a duty to co-operate in the Bill.
The amendment has been drafted with the support of the Blue Marine Foundation. The CFP provides the glue that currently holds UK fisheries governance together. Without it there is a danger that the various devolved Administrations, the MMO and the IFCAs will draft different regulations, since they will essentially have control over their own areas with no statutory obligation to speak to anyone else or have due regard to what happens in neighbouring waters. The effect of this fracturing of regulation was highlighted by the Pitt review after the catastrophic 2007 floods, where administrators had differing operational practices and poor communication within them. The new clause seeks to resolve that in relation to fisheries.
The fracturing of regulation was deemed to exacerbate the harm caused by flooding. Marine regulation faces the same problem. Two different landing sizes for the same species in different adjacent areas, for instance, would have the effect of making some regulations inoperable and confusing. Without a duty to co-operate, fisheries administrations would be acting together in an ad hoc manner and co-operation would be seen as an add-on to their core purpose. This duty would put co-operation at the centre of the administrations, where it needs to be.
The new clause is similar to section 13 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which followed the recommendations of the Pitt review. It does not replace the arrangements of the CFP but would go part of the way towards putting EU law into workable UK law.
Alan Brown
Given that we already have co-operation on the joint fisheries statement, can the hon. Gentleman explain how his new clause would create an additional level of co-operation?
Luke Pollard
Effectively, because the Government have decided to vote down the very sensible proposal of having a dispute mechanism to resolve any disputes in preparation of the joint fisheries statement and the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement, the new clause seeks to ensure that all national fisheries bodies have a duty to co-operate and that there is no dispute in the preparation of the joint fisheries statement policies. That is why it is so important that an obligation to co-operate is placed on all authorities, to avoid some of the disputes that we otherwise anticipate, especially in the complex waters between England and Scotland, and ensure that the Scottish and English fisheries authorities can set appropriate levels.
Alan Brown
How would we define and assess that co-operation, and who would make the call on how effective it is? I might argue, for example, that the UK Government are not co-operating on a certain aspect, whereas the UK Government might say, “Well, we are co-operating.” Different people would have different perceptions. How would this function in reality?
Luke Pollard
The duty to co-operate is a well-established legal text within primary legislation, so there is already an established understanding of what that means. On that basis, I will sit down and let the Minister respond.
George Eustice
I know that we have discussed this issue earlier, but it is already provided for elsewhere in the Bill. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at clause 5(1), in particular, which states:
“The fisheries policy authorities must prepare and publish a JFS before 1 January 2021.”
There is therefore already a legal obligation on all the fisheries policy authorities. Also, clause 3(1) states:
“A JFS may only be prepared by the fisheries policy authorities acting jointly”.
The fact that every fisheries policy authority is under a legal obligation to agree a JFS, and the fact that statement can be established only by those authorities acting jointly, already gives effect to a legal requirement to act jointly and in good faith to agree such a statement.
Luke Pollard
The title of clause 5 refers to “the first fisheries statements”. Can the Minister suggest what will happen in the event of a dispute on the second or third statements?
George Eustice
In the event that the statement is amended, the same rules apply. It can only be applied by the authorities acting jointly and we will have to agree these things. The first statement must be done by 2021, but any statements after that will obviously also be required, because there is a requirement to have a JFS. There will be more than one and the Bill also sets out that the statement must be reviewed at least every six years.
Luke Pollard
I thank the Minister for those remarks. They do not go much of the way towards reassuring us that the second or third fisheries statements will have any element of co-operation. Therefore, in the absence of a dispute resolution mechanism, which would address disputes in preparation for fisheries statements, and in the absence of him taking on board the duty to co-operate, I think we are storing up trouble that we can quite clearly anticipate in future. I suspect that, as I mentioned previously, some industrious journalist will dig out this Hansard report when there is a dispute between the different national fisheries authorities, and it will then be flagged to the wider public that this was anticipated and not resolved.
The Chair
I think that was an intervention on the Minister, who will now conclude his remarks.
George Eustice
It was a long intervention, but I have been guilty of that myself at times.
I will just point out that clause 5 goes on to say, in subsection (3):
“The fisheries policy authorities must review a JFS they have prepared and published whenever they consider it appropriate to do so and in any event—
(a) before the end of the period of 6 years beginning with the day on which it was published, and
(b) before the end of the period of 6 years beginning with the end of the most recent review.”
I therefore do not share the hon. Gentleman’s analysis that the duty to co-operate and to work jointly, and the legal obligation to have a fisheries statement, expires after the first one. Clause 5(3) is clear that that becomes an enduring obligation, and I am happy to make that clarification.
Those are the reasons why I oppose the new clause. As I have said many times, the Bill respects the contours of our devolution settlement. We have a long-standing track record of successful concordats and memorandums of understanding that deal with fisheries. When we approach an issue such as the December Council and annual fisheries negotiations, we send a UK delegation. We have a good track record of working together and I believe that the approach we have outlined here is the best one to ensure that we have a UK framework to deliver on those sustainability objectives.
Mr Carmichael
I support the new clause, which I think would improve the Bill. I certainly take the view that a dispute resolution mechanism would be preferable. In the absence of that, however, having a duty to co-operate would at least allow for a situation in which any party that was not co-operating could be subject to judicial review, because they would be in breach of a duty given to them under the law. For the Minister to say that there is an imperative to reach an agreement on the face of the Bill presupposes that everybody will work in good faith. In the event that people are not working in good faith, there has to be a mechanism for identifying that. The Bill is currently deficient in that regard. The new clause is second best, but it would be better than nothing.
Luke Pollard
I think that the points have been well established, but I suspect that the Minister will not accept the new clause. I suggest that he thinks carefully about the context in which we are raising concerns here, in good faith, to avoid trouble in future. I suggest that he considers bringing back an element of it when the Bill is considered in the other place. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 15
Expert advisory council on fisheries
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a body called the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries for the purpose of exercising the functions in subsections (4) to (6).
(2) The Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries shall consist of as many people as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) Before appointing any person to the Expert Advisory Council, the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) the other fisheries policy authorities, and
(b) any other such organisations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) The Secretary of State must have regard to the advice of the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries before—
(a) publishing or amending a Secretary of State fisheries statement,
(b) making or withdrawing a determination of fishing opportunities under section 18, and
(c) making any regulations under this Act, unless those regulations are made under—
(i) this section, or
(ii) section 42.
(5) The Secretary of State shall publish the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries” assessment, for a calendar year, of the state of UK fisheries, including—
(a) current stocks and their sustainability,
(b) species distribution within the Exclusive Economic Zone,
(c) the status of employment and skills in the fishing industry,
(d) present total catches and future projected total catches, by both volume and monetary value, and
(e) the economic and social value and impact of the fishing industry on coastal communities.
(6) The first annual assessment under subsection (5) shall be published within 12 months of this section coming into force, and each subsequent assessment must be published within 12 months of the previous such assessment.
(7) For a calendar year, no determination may be made under section 18 until the annual assessment under subsection (5) has been published for that year.”—(Luke Pollard.)
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to establish the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries, and provides for the Council’s membership and functions.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is important that we stop using the fishing industry as a political football. This is what the expert advisory council would seek to do, and it would do so by giving a say to those who know the industry best and have its best intentions at heart. The new clause has the industry’s support. Barrie Deas from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations told the Committee in evidence that his organisation would like to see an
“advisory council of people with experience of the industry, who understand the complexities of a highly diverse and complex industry”
as well as being
“a kind of filter for legislation”
that could also
“make recommendations and provide advice on new legislation coming through.”—[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 15-16, Q26-27.]
An advisory council would run new ideas past a panel of experts who understand the complexities and nuances of fisheries. The NFFO recommends the Australian model for reference. It suggests that an advisory council would formally guide policy and promote collaboration between central Government, the devolved Administrations, industry, scientists and other key stakeholders, allowing for
“an ongoing dialogue in a naturally variable industry”
and guaranteeing that sustainability issues are fully considered, as well as playing a leading role in the use of secondary legislation to ensure an agile and responsive approach to fisheries management.
On a final point, the NFFO has also pointed out that the Bill is right to forecast an important role for secondary legislation. It suggests that the common fisheries policy would be inflexible and rigid, and that it is therefore more important for there to be expert input. Further talks about delegated powers used appropriately would allow a more dynamic approach and would protect against unbridled use of such delegated powers. The NFFO would like to see an advisory council playing an influential role in advising the Government on the requirements of each piece of secondary legislation.
Phil Haslam backed up this argument in our evidence session, saying that anything that increases the dialogue between scientists “can only help” in that respect. He was referring to the provisions of an expert group that would include scientists, conservationists, industry representatives and those responsible for enforcement. We hope that the Government can support this very sensible amendment, which has industry backing.
Mr Carmichael
Fisheries management, and the politics surrounding it, is always at its worst when all the various stakeholders and parties retreat to their own silos and just lob howitzers at each other. We have seen how that works at different points over the years. It is unproductive. The secret to effective fisheries management, in my view, has always been to require there to be credibility from the system in the eyes of the industry, meaning that the industry has to be involved in the dialogue every step of the way. Getting fishermen, scientists, conservationists and the various Government agencies all in the room at the same time makes perfect sense. We have seen some measure of progress in this regard since 2002 and then in 2012, with the creation and then the strengthening of regional advisory councils, which—although they are an imperfect animal—have been a vast improvement on what we had before. This is a mechanism by which the industry, scientists, conservationists and others can all be kept in constant dialogue.
That would be an eminently sensible move, and the Minister would do well to note that this is essentially the policy put forward by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations. Its willingness, as the voice of our industry, should be rewarded and encouraged. For that reason, I support the new clause and hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will push it to a vote if the Minister does not have something positive to say about it. If he does push it to a vote, I will support it.
George Eustice
I do not think that the new clause is necessary, because we already have extensive involvement with stakeholders, including environmental NGOs and the fishing industry. We are working with the industry now to establish what type of advisory infrastructure we might want to put in place after we leave the European Union, but we do not believe that it is necessary to put that on a statutory footing.
I want to explain to hon. Members what we do every year in the December Council. Every year, in September, we rotate around the UK—this year we were in London and the previous year we were in Cardiff. Everyone with an interest comes, from green NGOs to fishing representatives. We talk them through the stock assessments and the approach that we intend to take at the December Council. Through a day-long session with DEFRA, that wide group has input on the negotiating stance that we will take. We follow that up with a series of smaller meetings with individual groups such as green NGOs, groups with fishing interests and producer organisations, to get a clearer and more detailed input on their own particular issues. That, of course, informs our negotiating position.
In addition, we have a number of other models, such as the scallop industry consultation group. We also work closely with other fisheries science partnerships around the country and have an expert advisory group already set up to consider EU exit issues. None of those bodies is on a statutory footing, but all of them are useful to us. Obviously, we are considering how those could play into the future.
Mr Carmichael
I commend the Minister for all those moves—they are exactly what he should be doing. However, this issue requires a Minister to be prepared to engage in that way. The Minister has been a Member for a good few years; he has certainly seen a few Fisheries Ministers in his time, and before he came to the House he saw other Fisheries Ministers who had a very different approach. Does he not understand that there is merit in putting the issue on the face of the Bill, to ensure that those who follow him will be required to undertake the same laudable steps that he himself has taken?
George Eustice
In fairness to all my predecessors, I should say that the convention that I have abided by was established a long time ago. Indeed, after the devolution settlement, the last Labour Government established the convention of a UK-wide delegation and we have had these stakeholder meetings annually ever since.
As I said, a number of other ad hoc advisory groups have been set up. The problem with putting a statutory body in the Bill in the way proposed is that that might become too rigid. The ability to bring together the relevant group of experts to address a particular challenge, through a particular taskforce—as we have done on scallops and EU exit, for instance—gets weaker.
We would also have to give a lot of thought about who should be on that advisory group. For example, we would need to consider which of the green NGOs had to be on there: it could not just be fishing interests, but would have to include many others besides. Nor is it clear that even a so-called panel of experts from the fishing industry and green NGOs would be able to do the work needed to draft and provide an annual assessment of the stocks; CEFAS does that highly technical piece of work—rightly, our technical and scientific experts provide that work for us. It is, of course, open to those who think they can to challenge such assessments, but the issue is not a matter of opinion but of scientific assessment that must be provided by groups such as CEFAS.
This raises an important point about how we engage with industry and green NGOs. I believe that we do so very effectively. We are not saying that we have a closed mind on having advisory groups in the future; we simply do not believe that the matter needs to be placed on a statutory footing—that would be too rigid and prevent us from being able to bring on board the expertise we need.
As I said, we will be talking with industry in the months ahead. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that when we return on Report we may be in a stronger position to outline the type of approach we intend to take, to ensure that we have input from industry and environmental NGOs.
Luke Pollard
I realise that I have committed a schoolboy error in not following the advice of the Environment Secretary. The amendment starts:
“Expert advisory council on fisheries”.
If only we had called it the pre-eminent voices’, the greybeards’, the boffins’, the experienced practitioners’, the aficionados’, the hotshots’ or even the maestros’ advisory council, we might have got it through.
The new clause is the only real change that the NFFO wanted to the Bill. Although I would have liked the NFFO to push further on a number of areas, it decided to push only on one—this area. To deny the key concern of the key stakeholder for the fishing industry across the UK and describe it as too rigid will not sit well with the fishing federations across the country.
Brendan O'Hara
The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case. Can he guarantee that his new clause will not impinge on the devolution settlement, but will fully respect the devolved competencies in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff?
Luke Pollard
It absolutely should do that. That gives the Secretary of State the ability to have some flexibility. Effectively, we have a Government who consult, but do not like a requirement to consult, and who are engaging with expert voices, but do not want an expert group. I have to say to the Minister that his reassurance, “Don’t worry, this will be okay on Report,” would have been a lot more reassuring if that engagement and work had been done prior to the Bill’s coming out.
George Eustice
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that it is already there? I have just explained in great detail how, every year as we approach a December Council, we engage a wide range of organisations.
Luke Pollard
Indeed, and Barrie Deas of the NFFO described the advisory set-up that exists already under the CFP. He has noted that its abolition via our exit creates a gap that needs to be filled by expert advisory groups, which is what the new clause suggests.
I understand that the Minister may not want to accept an amendment from the Opposition, so I encourage him to take the wording of it and tweak it ever so slightly, so that he can “make it his own”—to borrow a bit of Louis Walsh from “The X Factor”—and then bring it back later in the Bill’s progress, because this is something that the fishing industry wants. On that basis, I will be pushing the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We are nearly there now. We can all agree that more needs to be done to tackle the global crisis that is marine pollution, but better regulation is needed to ensure that the fishing industry plays its full role in tackling marine plastics.
The statistics on marine plastics waste are really shocking. Greenpeace estimates that 12.7 million tonnes of plastic end up in our oceans each year—the equivalent of a truckload of rubbish every minute. The waste includes everything that you might expect from our throw-away society, from plastic bottles and bags, to fruit stickers and disposable razors. It also includes plenty of waste produced by the fishing industry itself.
It has been heartening to see the war on plastics go from being something of a fringe issue to entering the mainstream, particularly since the broadcaster David Attenborough’s “Blue Planet II”. People across the country are switching to reusable bags, bottles and coffee cups, but the fishing industry has not yet fully faced up to the damage that some of its practices and its use of plastics are doing to the marine environment. The Environment Secretary found “Blue Planet II” so upsetting that he told The Guardian he had been “haunted” by images of the damage done to our oceans. I therefore wholeheartedly expect the Minister to support the new clause, which would help exorcise the Secretary of State’s demons.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions plastics. In the light of the proven effects of microplastics on the marine environment and wildlife, does he agree with me and environmental movements such as Plastic Free Hartlepool that the Bill presents a perfect opportunity to introduce long-overdue protective measures?
Luke Pollard
I agree that to tackle microplastics, especially the plastic waste generated by the fishing industry, we first have to deal with the macroplastics that are breaking down to form microplastics in many cases.
To take one example, which shows the scale of the problem, a study by the conservation group The Ocean Cleanup looked at the so-called great Pacific garbage patch—an area of floating rubbish estimated to be three times the size of France. It found that most of the 79,000 tonnes of plastic in the patch is abandoned fishing gear, as opposed to the plastic bottles or packaging that we tend to focus our efforts on. That rubbish included fishing nets and a range of other abandoned fishing gear, such as ropes, oyster spacers, eel traps, crates and baskets.
In the EU, it is estimated that approximately 20% of gear is lost at sea. The reasons for that range from accidents, storms and entanglement to intentional abandonment. A particular concern with fishing waste is that, by design, it will cause problems for marine life. Much of the waste has been dubbed “ghost nets”, a term that may be familiar to hon. Members, which refers to purposefully discarded or accidentally lost netting that drifts through the ocean and entangles whales, seals and turtles. Some estimates suggest that 100,000 marine animals are strangled, suffocated or injured by plastics every year.
Today, I met Christian Marr from Andrew Marr International—the fishing company, rather than the BBC journalist—who set out the extra steps to which his Jubilee fishing boats go to retrieve car tyres, plastic pollution and even washing machines from their nets while at sea. He also explained that he wants more ports to provide rubbish facilities so that waste generated by fishers at sea is landed and disposed of responsibly—which, to be honest, does not always happen—rather than discarded overboard. He made the good point that, if fishers leave for a week with their shopping delivery and get back without any shopping waste, there is only one place where that waste could have gone. The issue is partly about encouraging behaviour change in the fishing sector. Not all fishers do it, but some do, which is why tackling plastic waste is important.
It is clear that more can and should be done to tackle fishing’s plastic pollution problem, but progress has so far been slow. Conservation efforts would benefit from better data on the problem. The new clause would enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the amount of plastic waste produced during fishing activities is recorded and widely understood. It would also allow Ministers to regulate to prohibit the disposal of plastic items while at sea and to require plastic items to be disposed of at specified onshore processing facilities.
The new clause contains common-sense enabling steps that would strengthen the Secretary of State’s powers to tackle the problem. The Government like to say that marine waste is a priority for them, so I hope that the Minister will support the new clause.
Mr Carmichael
The inclusion of such a clause should be supported. If someone walks along any beach these days, they will see discarded rope, net, broken floats and old floats. Unfortunately, a lot of the plastic waste on our beaches comes from the fishing industry. There is a mixed experience with regard to the industry and its approach to that. There have been several really good initiatives over the years, some of which I have supported, particularly Fishing For Litter. Such things should be encouraged.
It is in the industry’s interest to ensure that the amount of plastic in the oceans, which then breaks down and becomes the microplastics that the hon. Member for Hartlepool referred to, is not there, because it will have an adverse effect on the fish that are caught. What enters the food chain has a consequence. What we have here is a power—a stick that the Minister may hold behind his back—to concentrate minds in the event that the initiatives taken by the industry are not pursued as universally and rigorously as the gravity of the situation demands.
George Eustice
This is an important issue. We all know that the challenge of plastics in our ocean has risen up the agenda significantly since “Blue Planet II”. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out, there are a number of important initiatives out there. We have supported, for instance, the Fishing For Litter initiative that he cited. In addition, the Government recently made available £200,000 to support a research project looking specifically at microplastics derived from tyres and clothing. However, we all know that in the context of fisheries the biggest challenge is perhaps that of ghost nets or lost nets, particularly when they have the monofilaments that can cause so much damage to our marine environment. I will address those areas specifically.
First, I draw hon. Members’ attention to clause 31(4)(i), which specifically cites
“the retrieval of lost or discarded sea fishing equipment”
as one of the areas where the Government can legislate through technical measures to address a particular challenge. I believe that the Bill already, through that subsection, addresses the issue of lost fishing equipment, including nets.
In addition to that provision in the Bill, there are existing provisions that we intend to retain. Notably, the Council control regulation 1224/2009 is being brought across through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That control regulation already requires that lost fishing gear retrieval must be attempted as soon as possible. It also requires that if retrieval is not possible, fishermen must inform the UK authorities within 24 hours —by notifying the UK Fisheries Monitoring Centre or through an electronic logbook. There is already a reporting requirement for lost gear that cannot be retrieved. The Marine Management Organisation also has guidance in place to assist fishermen to comply with those regulations.
I think that the combination of the powers set out in clause 31 and the retained EU law that already exists on the problem of lost fishing gear addresses the issue sufficiently, and there is therefore no need for the additional powers outlined by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport in new clause 16.
Luke Pollard
I thank the Minister for that response. Again, it is disappointing. Given that we have an urgent crisis around marine plastics, the strong voice of this House, united on a cross-party basis, should go out to say that extra steps will be taken to tackle marine waste. Putting that in the Bill, not hidden away in a subsection about the retrieval of lost gear—not something that I am convinced takes place in the way that the Minister suggests—would have sent a better tone to the industry, and to all voters concerned about marine plastics.
I am disappointed that the Minister has not picked this up. Again, I suggest that he looks seriously at the wording and considers tabling an amendment of his own on this matter later on. I would like to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Members will be pleased to hear that this is the last new clause that I will move this evening, but it is an important one. The Labour party has a manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative sector. The UK fishing industry contains a range of co-operatives operating in the catching, landing and processing sectors. The UK fishing industry, specifically the concentration of ownership and quotas, is in need of reform.
As we have already discussed, as we seek to gain greater and more sustainable use of the vast resources in the seas that surround our islands, we need to do so in a way that spreads wealth and ownership in the UK fishing industry. Greater diversity in ownership will benefit the industry and the communities that rely on it by challenging the dominant players and giving access to new entrants.
The fishing community has a long history of co-operation and co-operatives. The benefits of co-operatives are clear: increased productivity, increased resilience and the spread of economic democracy.
Mr Sweeney
Does my hon. Friend recognise that an exemplar of co-operation in the fisheries sector is the Scottish Seas co-operative, which covers numerous ports from Fraserburgh and Peterhead to all round the west coast? It encompasses 60 vessels and more than 250 fishermen, which is a huge opportunity for smaller fishermen to make a significant economic impact and to exert leverage on a market that is increasingly dominated by larger retailers and processors.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The success of the co-operative sector in the fishing industry has been a hidden secret. People who advocate co-operatives, as I do as a Labour and Co-operative MP, need to speak louder about that success story.
Further encouraging co-operative ownership and ways of working is common sense in many ways. New co-operatives in the differing aspects of the industry can be the building blocks of new community wealth for communities around the coast. We believe in the co-operative model, which is an important tool for rebuilding a fairer, and therefore better, fishing industry. The Government have important role to play in encouraging that development.
The Bill provides the opportunity to place new duties on the Secretary of State to support the expansion and development of co-operative businesses in all aspects of the fishing industry. Alongside our proposed quota reallocation to extend opportunities, support should be given to existing fishing co-operatives to grow, and to new co-operatives to start up. That should be targeted at coastal towns and communities where the fishing industry has been in the steepest decline. By supporting the new duties, the Government will show that they are interested not only in the status quo but in embracing their role in reshaping the industry and spreading economic democracy.
George Eustice
I agree that co-operatives have an important role to play in the fishing industry. In many ways, the industry is already dominated by producer organisations, which are a form of co-operative. Those organisations are formed by effectively pooling the quota that was attached to individual vessels. The vessels that join the producer organisation then pool their fishing opportunities and fish against them as a co-operative movement. They already dominate.
DEFRA has supported discussions and plans on the development of producer organisations in the inshore sector. When Jerry Percy gave evidence, we heard that he was keen to progress that. Some of the inshore under-10-metre fleet seek to support one another, come together as a co-operative and manage their own quota. We in DEFRA have said that we are open to doing that and to facilitating that for the inshore fishermen who would like to join such a co-operative.
I also point out that clause 28(1)(c) creates a power for Secretary of State to give financial assistance for the
“reorganisation of businesses involved in commercial aquaculture activities or commercial fish activities”.
There is provision in that clause for the Secretary of State to give financial assistance to co-operatives or to support producer organisations, so the power is there, should it be needed.
In conclusion, I agree that the co-operative model has an important role to play, but I argue that the sector has long co-operated through the existing producer organisation structure, and that the powers exist in the Bill to support that model further.
Luke Pollard
I think what the Minister said at the end was, “We support co-operatives and want to further their development,” but he just chose a way to shoot down the new clause nicely
George Eustice
What I was actually saying was that we do not need the new clause because there are powers elsewhere in the Bill to support co-operatives.
Luke Pollard
I am very pleased that the Minister managed to end the discussion by pointing out a clause that includes the word “aquaculture”, because that is one of our favourite points. Supporting the development of co-operatives is important and something that we should be encouraging, so I encourage the Minister to take it seriously. As a result, for the final time, I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Carmichael
The issues that I sought to explore in relation to new clause 23 were well explored earlier in our proceedings, and accordingly I am not seeking to press it.
Title
Amendment made: 10, title, line 11, after “fisheries;” insert—
“to make provision about the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales in relation to fishing, fisheries or fish health in the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limit of the territorial sea;”—(George Eustice.)
This amendment to the long title of the Bill is consequential on NC5.
George Eustice
On a point of order, Mr Gray. I do not want to detain hon. Members any longer than necessary but I want to record my thanks to the Clerks and all hon. Members for their work on the Committee, and in particular for staying so late this evening when the House has long since adjourned.
Luke Pollard
Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I add my thanks to the Committee staff, the Clerks and all the stakeholders who have contributed so much to the passage of the Bill, and I wish it best speed.
With your permission, Mr Gray, I also wish the Minister the best of luck at the fisheries summit. As he controls the programme motion, perhaps next time he finds himself with a fisheries Bill and a fisheries summit at the same time, it might be wise to adjust one so that he can attend the other. I wish him the best of luck for the remaining sessions of that summit and hope he comes back with a good deal for our fishers.
Mr Carmichael
Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I associate myself with those comments. It is at least eight and possibly nine years since I last sat on a Public Bill Committee. In fact, if I say that the last time I sat on a Bill of this sort it was a Standing Committee, you will understand, Mr Gray, that that takes us back to at least before 2010.
In addition to those we have already thanked, we should record our thanks to those who gave evidence to the Committee. As a neophyte in that regard, I thought that was enormously helpful. That innovation has enormously improved our procedures. Finally, I associate myself with the best wishes with which we send the Minister to Brussels. It has clearly not been an easy year but I hope he will do everything he can to bring home the best possible settlement because the sustainability we have spoken about in theoretical terms during the Committee is very much at stake in practical terms.
Brendan O'Hara
Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I associate the Scottish National party with the previous comments. Our sincere thanks to the Clerks and all hon. Members who have made this such an interesting, good-natured and serious Committee investigation of the Fisheries Bill. As everyone does, I wish the Minister the best of luck in his endeavours when he meets the rest of his EU counterparts. Finally, Mr Gray, thanks to you and Mr Hanson for chairing the proceedings.
The Chair
I am most grateful, Mr O’Hara. For a minute, I thought we had been forgotten. I will pass those thanks to Mr Hanson. Those were, of course, entirely bogus points of order, but they were none the less very welcome.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Written Statements
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Good Work Plan and Labour Market Enforcement
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
Last year Matthew Taylor (Chief Executive of the Royal Society of Arts) published the review of modern working practices, following a commission from the Prime Minister. In February the Government responded to the review, accepting the vast majority of the recommendations. The Government also launched four consultations alongside the response, seeking views on the approach to implementing the review. We received over 400 detailed consultation responses which have been invaluable in informing our policy development.
The industrial strategy set out a long-term plan to boost the productivity and earning power of people throughout the UK. Developing better jobs for everyone in the British economy is at the centre of the industrial strategy. Today the Government are publishing the Good Work Plan, setting out a vision for the future of the UK labour market and how the Government will implement the Taylor review recommendations.
As the industrial strategy set out, the world of work is changing rapidly, becoming more flexible and more connected. Never has it been more important for us to ensure the UK labour market is successful, competitive and ready to embrace the changes that come with technological advancements and the emergence of new business models. An essential part of achieving this is striking the right balance between flexibility and ensuring workers have the rights and protections they need. We also need to ensure that good employers in the UK are rewarded for their efforts, rather than being under-cut by a minority of irresponsible employers seeking ways to circumvent the law.
Today, we have also taken the important first step in implementing the Good Work Plan, bringing forward new legislation to provide further rights to workers and ban unfair practices.
I am proud to be the first Secretary of State to take responsibility for quality work and I have written to the Chair of the independent Industrial Strategy Council to ask for their views on the measures Government could use to measure quality of work in the UK. The Good Work Plan commits to a range of policy and legislative changes to ensure that workers can access fair and decent work, that both employers and workers have the clarity they need to understand their employment relationships, and that the enforcement system is fair and fit for purpose. This includes a commitment to legislate to tackle uncertainty around employment status.
Alongside the Good Work Plan today the Government are also publishing their response to the first full strategy from the Director of Labour Market Enforcement. Sir David Metcalf’s strategy was published on 9 May 2018 and made 37 recommendations on labour market enforcement and raising awareness of employment rights. The Government response accept the majority of the recommendations and sets out the steps the Government will take forward on raising awareness of employment rights, improving intelligence gathering of abuses and strengthening enforcement efforts.
The Home Secretary and I look forward to working with Sir David as the Government seek to implement the recommendations we have accepted and as he prepares to set clear strategic priorities in the 2019-20 Labour Market Enforcement strategy.
Copies of the Good Work Plan and the Government’s response to the Director of Labour Market Enforcement’s strategy will be placed in the Libraries of the House and available electronically on the www.gov.uk website.
[HCWS1184]
Advance from the Contingencies Fund
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
The Cabinet Office has sought a repayable cash advance from the contingencies fund of £137,110,000.
The requirement has arisen because the Cabinet Office receives a relatively high proportion of its voted funding at supplementary estimate, and as a consequence may only draw the related cash from the consolidated fund after the Supply and Appropriation Act has received Royal Assent in March 2019.
The cash advance will pay for programmes which will generate Government-wide benefits or savings and are urgent in the public interest, including advancing EU exit objectives, public inquiries, security, efficient management of Government property and development of IT systems that will benefit the public.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £116,507,000 and capital of £20,603,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Cabinet Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £137,110,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the contingencies fund.
[HCWS1191]
UK Statistics Authority
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
My right hon. Friend Lord Young of Cookham made the following written statement on Friday 14 November:
The twenty-second national census will be conducted in March 2021, across the United Kingdom. The 2021 Census is about collecting information to help build a country that works for everyone, and the results will reflect everyone in our society. To build a stronger, fairer and more caring society and to tackle injustices, we need reliable information on the number and characteristics of people and households to enable a wide range of services and future planning to be supported.
Correspondingly, Government are pleased to present to Parliament a White Paper “Help Shape our Future: The 2021 Census of Population and Housing in England and Wales” [Cm 9745], which sets out the UK Statistics Authority’s detailed proposals for the 2021 census in England and Wales. The Government propose that, subject to Parliamentary approval, the next census of population should be taken on 21 March 2021.
The Government rely on high quality data to make decisions which affect everyone in this country. The census is one of the key data collections where everyone will be able to have their say in 2021 about how they live so that decisions can be made to reflect the society of 2021 and beyond. The Government will use the information to inform policy, to plan public services to meet the needs of today’s society. Census data are also widely used by businesses, local authorities, health authorities, and others to help them plan their services.
The White Paper sets out the strategic aims for the census, explains the need for it, sets out the content and how it will be conducted and deals with matters of public interest such as data security and confidentiality. The White Paper also sets out the UK Statistics Authority’s proposals for the future of population statistics after 2021.
Following previous consultation, the White Paper proposes a new question on Armed Forces veterans which will give support to those who serve their country so well. There will also be new questions on sexual orientation and gender identity to reflect a 21st century society, although nobody will need to tell us their sexual orientation or gender identity if they do not want to. Ministers have decided the right not to respond to these latter two new questions should be made clear in legislation in due course, prior to the census taking place. This mirrors the legal approach taken in 2000 by Parliament when the question on religion was introduced in the 2001 census.
This White Paper sets out the proposals for a census in England and Wales in 2021. The proposed date for the census has been considered collectively across the three census offices in the UK (in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). The statistical offices of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are working together to ensure the production of harmonised statistics.
The UK Statistics Authority plans to hold a census rehearsal in October 2019. After consultation with the Welsh Ministers, the Government will lay before Parliament an Order in Council for approval in accordance with the Census Act 1920.
Copies of the White Paper are available from the Vote Office, on www.gov.uk, and have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The White Paper is also being presented to the National Assembly for Wales.
[HCWS1190]
ECOFIN 4 December 2018
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) was held in Brussels on 4 December 2018. The UK was represented by Mark Bowman (Director General, International Finance, HM Treasury). The Council discussed the following:
Early morning session
The Eurogroup President briefed the Council on the outcomes of the 3 December meeting of the Eurogroup, and the European Commission provided an update on the current economic situation in the EU. Following this, the Commission presented its forthcoming communication on the international role of the euro, and the Council held an exchange of views on the European Investment Bank.
Digital services tax
The Council held a policy debate on the proposal to establish an EU-wide digital services tax.
Strengthening of the banking union
The Council endorsed the results of the trilogue with regards to the banking package. The Austrian presidency then presented a progress report on the European deposit insurance scheme.
Current financial services legislative proposals
The Austrian presidency provided an update on current legislative proposals in the field of financial services.
Stability and growth pact
The Council noted the ongoing significant deviation procedures of Hungary and Romania under the stability and growth pact.
European semester 2019
The Commission presented the annual growth survey 2019, the alert mechanism report 2019 and its recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area.
Non-performing loans
The Commission presented the third progress report on implementation of the non-performing loans action plan.
[HCWS1188]
Funding and Support for Schools and High Needs
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
Today, I am pleased to announce additional revenue funding in 2018-19 and 2019-20, and extra capital funding in 2019-20, to provide support for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), as well as the 2019-20 dedicated schools grant (DSG) allocations to local authorities.
Our ambition for children with SEND is exactly the same as for every other child—to achieve well in school and college, find employment and go on to live happy and fulfilled lives. High needs funding has already risen by £1 billion, from £5 billion in 2013 to £6 billion this year. As part of our wide-ranging reforms to the SEND system in 2014, we introduced education, health and care (EHC) plans, to ensure that support is tailored to the needs of individuals, and families are put at the heart of the process. Already, more than 320,000 children and young people are benefiting from these.
Members from all sides of the House have raised concerns from schools, colleges and local authorities about the pressures on high needs budgets. I understand that these costs are rising, in particular the costs of special educational provision for those with more complex needs, funded from local authorities’ high needs budgets.
Today I am announcing a number of changes to start to address these pressures.
First, we will provide additional high needs funding allocations across all local authorities, of £125 million in each of 2018-19 and 2019-20. This brings the total allocated for high needs this year to £6.1 billion. This additional investment will help local councils to manage pressures and I have published the individual local authority allocations today.
Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity locally for pupils in mainstream and special schools, and for young people aged 16 and above, is a priority for this Government. As part of this, I am announcing a further £100 million top-up to the special provision capital fund in 2019-20 to take our total investment to £365 million across 2018-21. This additional funding will give more children access to a good school or college place that meets their individual needs. This could also pay for more state-of-the-art facilities, such as sensory rooms and specialist equipment.
We have also received 65 bids from local authorities identifying a need for new special and alternative provision free schools. We now anticipate that all those that fully meet the published criteria will be approved, even if the number of schools exceeds the 30 or so we had originally planned for.
Of course, extra funding cannot be our only response. I want to continue engaging with local authorities, health providers, families, schools and colleges to better understand what is driving the cost pressures on high needs budgets, and to work with the sector to help manage them. Therefore, today I am writing to all local authorities to outline our plans for supporting them in their role of providing strategic leadership and oversight of the provision for children and young people with SEND. While local authorities have this responsibility, I am clear that they cannot act alone in doing so.
To equip all areas to improve planning and commissioning we are establishing a SEND system leadership board focused on improving joint education, health and care commissioning, as recommended by Dame Christine Lenehan’s review into the experiences and outcomes of children in residential special schools and colleges. We are also establishing joint ministerial roundtables with the Department for Health and Social Care to give providers, users and voluntary sector organisations further opportunities to input their views and insight across the SEND system.
To support local authorities in carrying out their statutory EHC plan assessment process and to support schools and colleges in their work with families, I am announcing funding for training more educational psychologists (EPs). We will be funding three more cohorts of EP trainees, starting in September 2020; and will increase the number of trainees from 160 to at least 206, to reflect increased demand. Classroom teachers and those in training will also have a greater focus on supporting children with SEND, as the upcoming teacher recruitment and retention strategy will make sure all teachers are equipped with the knowledge and skills to meet the needs of all pupils.
My Department is also commissioning SEN Futures: a flagship package of long-term research and analysis to provide evidence on the impact of current SEN provision on children and young people’s outcomes, and to assess the value for money of SEN provision in England. Procurement for the first pieces of work in this programme has begun today.
In addition, in order better to understand the financial incentives that influence how schools, colleges and councils support children and young people with special educational needs, the Department for Education will be gathering more evidence early in 2019. This will include looking at the first £6,000 schools pay for special educational provision before accessing additional funding from local high needs budgets.
I recognise the rising demand for EHC plans for those over 19, and the need for education, health and social care services to agree a shared vision of what good life outcomes look like for an individual, and when it is right to cease an EHC plan. We have commissioned one of our delivery partners, the National Development Team for Inclusion to work with 20 local authorities to develop and model effective practice on this, and to share their findings across regions.
I also want to continue to ensure that services for young people with SEND effectively prepare them for adulthood, including employment: raising expectations and aspirations for young people, their parents, education providers and employers. My officials are working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions on this, and we are committed to finding ways to support more young people with SEND into sustainable employment. I want our wider reforms to post-16 education, including T-Levels, to be accessible to those with SEND and will continue to support close working between colleges, schools and local authorities to improve pathways to adulthood.
Today I am also confirming the school and early years funding allocations for 2019-20. This announcement covers the DSG and the Pupil Premium.
The distribution of the DSG to local authorities is set out in four blocks for each authority: a schools block, a high needs block, an early years block, and the central school services block.
In July 2018, we published the primary and secondary units of funding for the schools block, the provisional allocations for the high needs block and central school services block. These have been updated with the latest pupil numbers to show how much each local authority will receive in 2019-20.
The early years national funding formula rates for 3 and 4-year-olds for 2019-20 were published on 22 November, and today we have announced initial allocations for this block.
The pupil premium per pupil amounts will be protected at the current rates.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the resolution of the House following the Opposition day debate on school funding on 13 November.
Children only get one chance at a great education, which is why, as today’s announcement further demonstrates, this Government have prioritised and protected school spending—even while having to take difficult public spending decisions in other areas.
Across the board, standards are rising; in 2010, 66% of children were in good or outstanding schools—that is up to 84% now. While there is more money going into our schools than ever before, and we know from international studies that our school spending is in line with or above most comparable countries, we recognise the budgeting challenges schools face and that we are asking them to do more. That is why we have announced a school resource management strategy, setting out a wide range of practical support to help schools reduce their costs and make every pound count, while at the same time improving outcomes for pupils.
With the funding and support for schools and high needs announced today, I am confident that they will be able to continue to improve outcomes for all children and young people.
[HCWS1185]
Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
My noble Friend, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon), has made the following written statement:
On Tuesday 4 and Wednesday 5 December, I chaired the UK-Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council in London, the 20th such gathering of OT leaders. The Council was attended by elected leaders and representatives from Anguilla, Ascension Island, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, St Helena, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Tristan da Cunha and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
The key themes of discussion at this year’s Council were preparations for the UK’s exit from the European Union; financial services, including beneficial ownership registers; future economic growth, focussing on trade and investment; the constitutional relationship with the UK; the Global Britain agenda; passport issues; safeguarding of vulnerable persons and natural disaster resilience management.
Ministerial colleagues from the Departments for International Development (The right hon. Lord Bates), Exiting the European Union (Robin Walker MP), International Trade (George Holingbery MP), Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Therese Coffey MP) and Her Majesty’s Treasury (The right hon. Mel Stride MP) attended the discussions, as did the Minister for the Constitution (Chloe Smith MP). I held bilateral meetings with territory leaders. The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (The right hon. Sir Alan Duncan, KCMG MP) met Members of the Falklands Islands Legislative Assembly.
The Council agreed priorities and set out a number of important commitments and areas for joint work in the year ahead.
We continued our dialogue on the implications for the overseas territories of the UK’s departure from the EU and reiterated our objective to achieve an outcome that works for all parts of the British family. We will seek to ensure the security and economic sustainability of the overseas territories is preserved and strengthened post- Brexit. We discussed how we can better promote the overseas territories as part of the global British family by using the GREAT campaign, bringing the richness and diversity of the territories to our shared international British brand. We reiterated the UK’s commitment to the OTs as a vital part of the British family, and discussed how to ensure the constitutional arrangements work effectively to promote the best interests of each individual territory and of the UK.
We welcomed the progress made by the overseas territories who are committed to implement recommendations made by the Code of Conduct Group, with the outcome that the territories would not be placed on the “tax blacklist”. We acknowledged that there have been huge challenges and have recognised the ongoing issues. We highlighted the importance of continued engagement with the EU Commission and underlined that the delivery of legislation is of paramount importance.
The press statement reflects the commitment of the Governments of the Overseas Territories and the UK to continue to work in partnership to achieve the vision set out in the June 2012 White Paper: The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability.
In line with our commitment in the White Paper, we will continue to report to Parliament on progress by Government Departments.
A copy of the press statement has been published on the www.gov.uk website.
[HCWS1186]
Justice and Home Affairs Council
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
The final meeting of EU Interior and Justice Ministers during the Austrian presidency took place on 6 and 7 December in Brussels. I represented 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), represented the UK on Justice day. Scottish Government Minister for Communities, Ash Denham MSP, also attended.
Interior day began with the Council agreeing a partial general approach on the amendments to European border and coast guard regulation. The presidency concluded that further discussion was needed on the numbers of border guards in the European border and coast guard standing corps, as well as in relation to issues of national sovereignty related to deployments. Member states also expressed concerns over aligning capacity with finances. The Immigration Minister did not intervene as the UK does not participate in this Schengen-building measure.
The Council also discussed the returns directive. Member states expressed significant differences of opinion on detention while a claim was processed and on clarity as to the risk of absconding. The Commission encouraged member states to finalise this file by the end of the legislature. The UK does not participate in this measure.
The Council then discussed the regulation on preventing terrorist use of the internet. Several member states were not able to support the text due to the regulation’s conflict with their own national constitutions and concerns on the balance between the removal of content and fundamental rights. Some member states sought further consideration of the measure. However, the presidency concluded support for a general approach, judging the proposal to be a good and responsible compromise text. The Immigration Minister intervened to support the general approach, emphasising the importance of this legislation in tackling terrorist content online. The presidency stated that it would seek to address various points of concern in future trilogue negotiations.
The Commission urged member states to finalise those proposals of the common European asylum reform package where agreement was in reach. However, in discussion over lunch, member states remained split on the issue of solidarity and burden sharing. The Immigration Minister intervened to emphasise the importance of the comprehensive approach to migration, and specifically on the issue of developing more sustainable general solutions to tackle migratory flows, including tackling the drivers of migration.
After lunch, the Council approved an action plan to tackle migrant smuggling.
The Council then discussed JHA priorities for the 2021-27 MFF. The EU JHA agencies set out their priorities. The UK did not intervene as these programmes will commence after the UK’s exit from the EU and the end of the envisaged implementation period. The UK will, therefore, not be participating in any future programmes as a member state.
On Justice day, the Council reached a general approach on the sale of goods directive. There was a wide divergence of views on the value of maximum harmonisation of law to set common contractual requirements for consumer purchases by consumers. The UK and other member states argued for the maintenance of member states’ flexibility to guarantee higher levels of consumer rights. Member states expressed desire to continue the discussion on this issue during the trilogues with the European Parliament.
The Council also reached a general approach on the recast of Brussels IIa regulation on family matters and parental responsibility. The Justice Secretary welcomed the text, as well as the presidency’s work to accommodate UK concerns on the hearing of the child. He also noted UK ambition for civil law co-operation after our EU exit, which elicited positive statements from member states not just on family co-operation, but across civil law, and on future security co-operation.
The Commission and the presidency noted progress on the assignment of claims directive at working level, which deals inter alia with the third-party effects on assignments of claims. Member states cautioned that the directive should be careful not to disrupt existing and functioning market systems.
The presidency, supported by the Commission, sought to reach a general approach on e-evidence, about law enforcement access to data held by communications service providers. A number of member states voiced strong opposition to the text on the basis that it did not adequately protect member states’ fundamental interests nor the fundamental rights of citizens.
The presidency concluded there was enough support for a general approach and the measure would proceed to trilogues where further discussions would aim to resolved other member states’ concerns.
The Commission indicated that they will finalise the draft negotiating mandates for the second additional protocol to the Budapest convention and for discussions with the US.
On data retention, the presidency updated on continuing working level discussions on the preservation of law enforcement capabilities and other public authority tools that would also meet the requirements of recent, stricter CJEU case law. The Commission noted that it would be difficult to restrict data retention to certain persons or geographic areas but nonetheless proposed to undertake additional targeted consultation. Member states called on the Commission to ensure continued attention to data retention in the future, noting likely developments in CJEU case law expected in 2019.
The Council adopted conclusions on mutual recognition, mutual trust and the principles underlying mutual recognition instruments such as the European arrest warrant. The Justice Secretary underlined UK commitment to future co-operation with the EU on this basis to enable continued joint working to tackle the challenges of transnational crime.
The Commission updated Ministers on significant progress made in answering points raised by the CJEU on EU accession to ECHR. It was agreed that amendments to the draft accession agreement would be strictly limited to what was required by the Court. The importance of accession was highlighted as a priority for the EU and its citizens and swift resolution encouraged.
[HCWS1189]
Security Situation in Northern Ireland
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
This is the twelfth written statement to Parliament on the security situation in Northern Ireland since the Independent Monitoring Commission concluded its work in July 2011. It covers the security situation and threat from Northern Ireland related terrorism, rather than from international terrorism, which Members will be aware is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who updates the House separately.
In the 13 months since the last statement on Northern Ireland’s security situation, a small number of violent dissident republican terrorist groups have continued to pursue a campaign of violence. Violent dissident republican terrorists are relatively small, disparate groupings. They remain intent on killing and undermining the will of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland who have repeatedly and consistently expressed their desire for peace. These groupings choose to pay no heed to this and continue to plan attacks with the purpose of murdering and maiming those who work on a daily basis to uphold the rule of law and protect the whole community. In attempting to impose their unwanted control on people across Northern Ireland, these groupings also choose to ignore democracy, principles that have been, and will continue to be, central to the political process in Northern Ireland.
In 2016, dissident republican terrorists murdered prison officer Adrian Ismay while in 2017 they again demonstrated their lethal intent, including one attack where a petrol station forecourt was sprayed with gunfire and two police officers were wounded. There have been two attempts to murder police officers since the last written statement, with numerous other plots identified and prevented by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and MI5. These included shots fired at police officers during rioting in Londonderry in July of this year. This incident, like many dissident republican terrorist attacks, posed a risk to members of the public in the immediate area as well as the police officers who were targeted while they were working to keep communities safe.
I wish to pay tribute to all the agencies, including the PSNI, MI5 and the bomb disposal teams, who work on a daily basis to keep people safe. In many cases their work can make them the target of dissident republican terrorists. I applaud the work they do across Northern Ireland, their professionalism and the personal sacrifices that so many of them make in support of this vital work. I also commend the work undertaken by An Garda Siochana, and the excellent relationship they have with their counterparts in Northern Ireland. This has had a significant impact on dealing with the threat. The commitment of such a wide variety of agencies to public service and to the communities they serve, stands in stark contrast to the acts of dissident republicans.
While terrorist attack planning continues, law enforcement pressure has reduced the number of national security attacks. Since the start of 2018 there has been one national security attack, compared to five in 2017, four in 2016 and a total of 16 attacks in 2015 and 40 in 2010. Although there has been a reduction in the overall number of national security attacks in recent years, vigilance in the face of this continuing threat remains essential and the threat level remains
Since October 2017, MI5 has identified a number of violent dissident republican attack plots; two attacks were attempted, but were ultimately unsuccessful, and others were disrupted. This success is in no small measure due to the continued close working between PSNI and MI5, as well as with the authorities in Ireland. Each of the main violent dissident republican groups has suffered significant disruption including the loss of personnel and weapons in the past 12 months. During the past 12 month period (1 October 2017-30 September 2018) in Northern Ireland, there have been 143 arrests under the Terrorism Act, with 16 people subsequently charged. During the same period, 45 firearms, 0.74kg of explosives and 3157 rounds of ammunition have been seized. This pressure, and other interventions, is a barrier to, and a brake on dissident republican activity of all kinds, although I assess that, in the coming months, dissident republican terrorist groups will continue to seek to attack officers from the PSNI, prison officers and members of the armed forces.
As a consequence of violent dissident republicans’ actions and intent, the threat from Northern Ireland Related Terrorism in Northern Ireland remains SEVERE, which means an attack is highly likely. In Great Britain, the threat from Northern Ireland Related Terrorism was reduced in March this year from SUBSTANTIAL to MODERATE, which means an attack is possible, but not likely.
The Government have consistently made it clear that terrorism, including Northern Ireland Related Terrorism, will not succeed and tackling it continues to be of the highest priority. We are determined to keep people safe and secure across the United Kingdom. To support this effort over this Parliament we have provided £160 million of additional security funding to the PSNI to tackle the enduring threat from Northern Ireland Related Terrorism. This is significant funding. They recognise the severity of the terrorist threat; it demonstrates our unwavering commitment to the brave men and women in the police and intelligence agencies, and it is helping to keep people safe.
Paramilitary groups, both republican and loyalist, continue to carry out violent criminal attacks against members of their own communities. So far this year there have been 64 such attacks. This includes one paramilitary related death, 16 casualties of paramilitary style shootings and 47 casualties of paramilitary style assaults. The hypocrisy of paramilitary-linked criminals claiming to act to defend their communities from anti-social behaviour and drug dealing, while at the same time profiting from this activity is not lost on affected communities. They are targeting the most vulnerable members in their communities as they try to exert control and fear.
This Government continue strongly to support ongoing efforts to tackle paramilitarism and organised crime in Northern Ireland through the delivery of the commitments made in the executive’s action plan on tackling paramilitary activity, criminality and organised crime. This work is, by design, a collaborative endeavour being taken forward by a partnership of more than 24 organisations, including executive departments, statutory bodies and voluntary and community sector partners. Delivery is being achieved through four connected and mutually reinforcing approaches, aimed at developing long term prevention measures; building confidence in the justice system; building capacity to support communities in transition; and putting in place the strategies and powers to tackle criminal activity. Supporting the move away from paramilitary activity and promoting a culture of lawfulness are key underpinning are providing £25 million over five years to support a Northern Ireland executive programme of activity. This resource is being matched by the executive, giving a total of £50 million. The Independent Reporting Commission (IRC) is charged with reporting on progress towards ending paramilitary activity, and its first report was published on 23 October 2018.
In the last year significant progress has been made. For example, key initiatives already making a difference include outreach programmes aimed at supporting young people in areas particularly vulnerable to paramilitary activity; a programme delivering mentoring support for young men; and one for women aimed at building their capacity to be involved in community transformation. Work also continues on the speeding up justice programme, and the PSNI is working with communities to implement training and interventions in collaborative problem solving, as well as local initiatives to address issues of visibility and engagement. Young people have also been taking part in a programme on lawfulness being run by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, and a number of other pilot projects on the theme of promoting a culture of lawfulness are being delivered by a range of partners.
In addition, since the Paramilitary Crime Task Force, which comprises the PSNI, the National Crime Agency (NCA) and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), became fully operational in 2017, it has carried out a number of high profile operations against organised crime groups linked to paramilitaries. During 2017-18 the Task Force carried out over 110 searches and made over 47 arrests, including 44 people charged or reported to the Public Prosecution Service. In addition, 21 paramilitary-related organised crime groups were frustrated, disrupted or dismantled.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the SEVERE threat from dissident republican terrorists remains and paramilitary activity continues to have an impact in certain communities in Northern Ireland. Considerable progress has been made but the need for vigilance remains. There are a relatively small number of people who wish to continue to commit acts of terror and who want to control communities through violence for their own criminal ends. Through the excellent work of PSNI, MI5 and other law enforcement agencies including An Garda Siochana, we will continue to bring to justice those who seek to cause harm in our society. There never has been, and there never will be any place for terrorism or paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. We all must play our part so that we can continue to allow Northern Ireland to flourish and ensure a stronger Northern Ireland for everyone free from this harmful and malign activity.
[HCWS1187]
Single Financial Guidance Body Launch
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The Department for Work and Pensions is launching the Single Financial Guidance Body, established under s1 of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 in January 2019. The new body will deliver money guidance, pensions guidance and debt advice to the public. However, the launch date is in advance of the Department for Work and Pensions Supplementary Estimate 2018-19. This will give the confirming authority of the Supply and Appropriation Act to this expenditure. This will not be published until February, and not authorised until mid-March. In order to continue to provide these services to the public, DWP has therefore requested a Contingencies Fund advance.
Parliamentary approval for resources of £35,000,000 for this new service has been sought in the Supplementary Estimate for the Department for Work and Pensions. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £35,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund. This sum is equivalent and no different from existing resources.
Once Royal Assent to the Supply and Appropriation Bill is achieved, the advance will be repaid.
[HCWS1192]
Grand Committee
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Employment: Terminal Illness
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps, if any, they will take to prevent workers being dismissed from their jobs following diagnosis of a terminal illness.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by praising the work of the Government and, in particular, the Minister for Disabled People, Sarah Newton, for their support for the TUC Dying to Work campaign and for encouraging employers through the disability confidence scheme to adopt the TUC voluntary charter. I also wish to mention my good friend and colleague, Pauline Latham MP, who sadly cannot be with us today but has done a lot of work at that end of the Corridor, as has, in a slightly different context, Madeleine Moon on behalf of people suffering from motor neurone disease.
The TUC charter, as many noble Lords will know, has been a great success, with almost a million workers protected and companies such as Rolls-Royce in Derby, Bombardier, Legal & General, Santander, TSB, Lloyds, Weetabix, E.ON and the Royal Mail all signing up to demonstrate their commitment to protect and support their terminally ill workers.
While the Government’s support for the charter is commendable, not every employee is fortunate enough to be employed by such a supportive employer. Jacci Woodcock, the patron of the TUC Dying to Work campaign who I am delighted to say is with us today, faced significant problems after she informed her employer of her diagnosis of terminal breast cancer. Ms Woodcock is not alone, and therefore I believe that there is a need to strengthen the provision that is afforded to terminally ill workers.
Under the Equality Act 2010, it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics in certain areas of life, including employment. Anyone who is diagnosed with a terminal illness will almost definitely be covered by that definition of disability. However, within the Equality Act, employers retain the ability to dismiss a disabled worker on the grounds of capability following a reasonable adjustment. While this is clearly reasonable in standard cases of disability, where the employee has the opportunity to learn new skills and adapt to the adjustments made, I am sure that noble Lords will acknowledge that terminally ill workers find themselves in a fundamentally different situation. First, their condition is necessarily degenerative, so any adjustments made for them which may be reasonable one day are perhaps not reasonable the next. There can also be significant differences and life expectancies between, say, a cancer diagnosis and one of motor neurone disease. Therefore, there is a need for a very different approach.
Secondly, such procedures can be stressful. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that such additional stress and strain is very unwelcome at such a difficult time and, indeed, may exacerbate the health issues being faced.
Finally, when a terminal diagnosis is made, people’s first thoughts are often with the loved ones they will leave behind. People understandably want to make sure that their nearest and dearest are financially secure. Many people currently have death-in-service schemes or life assurance as part of their contracts of employment, and these often pay out significant sums. However, should a terminally ill worker be dismissed in their end-of-life period, they would lose not only their job but their entitlement to these benefits.
Despite the clear need to provide additional protection for terminally ill workers, I can understand the Government’s reluctance to begin amending the Equality Act. However, I think this could be done with a suitable statutory instrument. The TUC has received legal advice that I have been made privy to, and am happy to share with the Minister, which suggests a sensible way forward without the need to amend the Act. The Secretary of State can lay regulations that determine the circumstances in which an employee is incapable of carrying out their duties due to ill health. It would still be reasonable for an employer to retain such a person in their employment, and not to dismiss them, where that employee is disabled by a terminal illness.
In the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, terminal illness is defined as being where death is expected within six months. This definition could be maintained. However, should the Government wish to pursue this course of action, a protected period of two years might be more appropriate, to ensure that employees are not concerned that their legal protection will imminently expire.
Colleagues across the House may be concerned that such a proposal might put additional strain on small and medium-sized enterprises. However, judging by the way maternity leave has worked in small businesses, I believe that these can be overcome. Regulations made under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act mean that recovery of benefits is usually made by deducting the relevant amount from PAYE, national insurance and any student loan repayments that the employer is due to make to HMRC. There is, therefore, no immediate need for a cash-flow crisis to hit an employer. Further provision could be made in regulations without the need for any primary legislation.
I would like the Government to look closely at these proposals, of which I have given the Minister details, and seek to lay the necessary statutory instruments, so that in future no other terminally ill workers need have the additional stress or strain of worrying about their job and their family’s financial future.
On a purely personal note, I decided, on my own initiative, to consult my daughter and my daughter-in-law. One is a director of HR for a company in the City; the other is a deputy director of HR for a very large firm of solicitors. I asked them what they knew about how to deal with terminal illness. They basically said that they looked it up in the book. They both have an MSc in human relations. For neither of them was dealing with terminally ill workers part, for even half an hour, of their course. In other words, they qualified with an MSc in HR from different universities, at different times, in different cities and on different courses, without dealing with terminal illness even being referred to.
We need, therefore, to look beyond the terminal illness that we are dealing with here, and to ask the Government and the TUC to support the training of HR workers in how to deal with this problem, which affects a lot of workers. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester for being here, because this is a problem that is often dealt with by people of faith in many different religions. The right reverend Prelate will acknowledge that all faiths have to deal with this matter. It is a great strain, and many people in work faced with a terminal illness need a huge amount of support, love and effort. We owe it to them to train our workforce, and as a Government we owe it to the people of this country to do the best we can—without undue legislative weight—to make this a bearable problem for the many people affected. I thank noble Lords for listening to this opening speech.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, I greatly welcome this debate, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for bringing this important matter to our attention. I also welcome the TUC’s support of the courageous work of Jacci Woodcock in highlighting the issue, on the basis of her own experience.
As a trustee of the diocese of Chichester, I share responsibility for employing nearly 100 staff but also for the care of some 400 clergy. These clergy are office-holders, not employees, and many live in accommodation they occupy by virtue of their office. A terminal illness for one of those clergy, as for anybody else, carries the prospect of multiple concerns, but especially for those dependent on them. The loss of income and a home are primary concerns, alongside the personal challenges of failing health and dependence on others—often difficult for those more familiar with caring for others. The potential loss of their home goes right to the heart of the fear of death and the implications for a family—particularly if there are issues such as schooling and the future of children—that a terminal illness brings. When a family is most challenged, networks of social relationships are immensely sensitive.
In the case of office-holders—our clergy—regulations attached to their appointment give a measure of protection, but the wider housing needs of a family are discretionary. Our policy in the diocese of Chichester is to treat each case individually, doing as much as we can to understand a family’s needs, such as schooling, and to support them in making their choices for the future.
In the one or two cases that have occurred while I have been Bishop of Chichester, we believe that the perception of a high level of care for the family, and for the person who has the terminal illness and is enabled to continue in ministry for as long as possible, has had a significant impact on trust and morale for other clergy in the diocese, who are living in a similar condition of dependency for their housing on their occupation of an office.
This is just one example of how the implications of terminal illness can relate to a person’s profession, work and beyond. The Dying to Work campaign invites us to consider another aspect of responding to terminal illness. It is increasingly the case that the death of someone close to us is not experienced until relatively late in our lives. We are not well prepared for the news of that death or how to respond to it emotionally. Our own mortality is given little attention in a culture that has benefited so much from medical science and unprecedented levels of healthcare. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, gave the example of his daughter and daughter-in-law’s experience of being highly qualified HR consultants and practitioners and yet this taboo subject was not part of their training.
We find it easy to express our own grief in social ways—flowers, cards and candles at roadside shrines, for example—but, as clergy, we know from first-hand experience of being alongside the bereaved that grief will isolate you. It is so common to hear a bereaved person describe how many people came to a funeral but say that, a couple of days later, someone would cross the road to avoid a face-to-face encounter, because they did not know how to talk about death and grief.
Working alongside a person who is going to die is a privilege. It teaches us something about ourselves that our social processes today simply do not prepare us for. This is not a matter of Christian faith but simply a fact—the unflinching facing of our mortality. Working with somebody close to us who is going through that process can help break down the barrier of fear and embarrassment that prompts us to avoid not only the dying but, perhaps more significantly, the bereaved.
Finally, those who are handling a terminal illness are often capable of showing us the best of which a human being is able to demonstrate in challenging circumstances. Once again, this is enormously beneficial and inspirational for the atmosphere of a place of work.
Right now, in the diocese of Chichester we have a young priest who has a terminal illness. The institution in which he has been working has found accommodation that will meet his needs, while keeping him in touch with friends and colleagues. His mobility and energy levels had declined markedly when I saw him last, but his generosity of spirit and capacity to find the best in each day and each person he meets are remarkable, profoundly attractive and unforgettable. You cannot set a price on, or pay to, access this kind of inspirational example. It is a gift and a privilege, and it has rightly been drawn to our attention as something that we need to prize more greatly than we do.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful for the opportunity to support my noble friend Lord Balfe in this important debate. I am also glad to hear the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, which went much wider and were very moving in the context of bereavement, terminal illness and degenerative disease.
I want to approach this from a slightly different angle, if the Committee will bear with me, because it may not be obvious to begin with. I have just finished reading a book by Professor Sir Paul Collier, The Future of Capitalism. He is the professor of economics and public policy at the Blavatnik School of Government in Oxford and makes an interesting point which is relevant to this debate, narrow though it may seem in that context. He says that the ethos of a typical company has been changing. I imagine that he is probably now in his 60s or possibly even his 70s, but as a young man he was brought up in Sheffield, where there were lots of steel companies. As he says, at that time everyone was proud of producing wonderful steel. Sheffield was the steel city of the world and, on the whole, workers were treated well, with strong trade unions and strong rights.
My first job was with Rowntree’s, which is well known as a part of the Quaker tradition. It has now been taken over by Nestlé while the other big Quaker confectionery company, Cadbury’s, has been taken over by an American company. Those companies built houses for their workers and had a proper approach to welfare. There was also the Rowntree Trust, which was involved in social policy.
Paul Collier’s book is very interesting, because he relates it to the nature of capitalism and how we deal with workers. His point is that since the 1970s, things have changed slowly. We have steadily introduced the idea of a company producing not the best product it can but shareholder value, which rules the roost. Companies are now expected to adhere to shareholder value in their basic philosophy. The professor has worse examples than that. For example, he mentions that at Goldman Sachs, people were sent out to find suckers to sell their products to. That is the level we have got to in some parts of our financial industries. As a consequence, this is in effect globalisation. Globalisation has been immensely good in many ways. It has lifted millions of people out of poverty in China and India, but it has had a downside. It has meant greater inequality, less care than there perhaps was previously for workers’ rights and, generally, poor- quality jobs.
This growing inequality is one of the things that I think led to Brexit, for example, to the rustbelt in America, the protests in France and the problems in the Mezzogiorno of Italy. With that downside there is less care for the workers, as opposed to the overall demand of a company to maximise profits and pursue consumer satisfaction, at the expense of workers’ rights and experience.
The obvious answer is more active government. I was glad that my noble friend made the point that there is a possibility of doing something through a statutory instrument to address this issue. I hope that the Minister has something positive to say about that. Today I understand that Greg Clark, the Business Secretary, is setting out some further examples of how the Government are tackling workplace problems and worker rights and I hope this can be included in that general agenda as well as in the specific question which my noble friend raised.
As Professor Collier states in his book, the truth is that government cannot do everything. I think the right reverend Prelate will agree with this point. We also have responsibilities. Companies have responsibilities and individuals have responsibilities as well as the state. The state simply cannot cover the waterfront and get all this done. It is simply too much to ask, especially when we have this wretched Brexit and the bandwidth of government is totally occupied with other matters. Companies have to reacquire—this is the point that Professor Collier makes in the book—the moral and ethical dimension which many of them once had but which is less prevalent today. My noble friend mentioned some companies which have already adopted this idea of help with degenerative or terminal illness, and I was glad to hear that, but he also mentioned that it was not mentioned in the advice given to his daughter and daughter-in-law who are in the HR field, so clearly there is a real problem about companies not recognising the issue.
My plea is not only for the Government to look at this issue and do something about it but that companies, perhaps through the TUC campaign, get on board. It is wonderful that Jacci Woodcock is here today. I am delighted to see her; we are full of admiration—I certainly am—for all that she has done. It is remarkable and it will be a great tribute to her if we could rack up examples of companies voluntarily doing something about it, not waiting for a statutory instrument to be passed by your Lordships’ House and the House of Commons. That would be a wonderful tribute to the work she has put in.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for this debate and to the Committee for allowing me to speak in the gap. I should declare an interest because when I was chair of the National Council for Palliative Care, which has now merged with Hospice UK, it was an early signatory to the TUC voluntary code of practice and did not hesitate for one second over signing up to it.
It was at that time that I saw Jacci Woodcock. She has spoken very openly and with amazing courage about her situation and her emotional response to what has happened to her. Unfortunately, fewer than 1 million workers, I think, are now covered by the voluntary scheme, even though it is going well. I hoped that it would be something like three-quarters of the UK by now, and I think that reflects some of the problems that have been referred to in HR departments.
In the short time available, I shall look at the problem from the point of view of the person, their spouse and their children and then from that of the rest of the workforce, including HR departments. The person is devastated when they have a diagnosis of a life-limiting illness. They can feel as if they are now on the scrapheap, their life is drawing to a close and then they can find themselves rejected by a place they have worked in and in which they have invested their time and emotional energy. They almost always have distress in four main domains: the physical in relation to the illness; the emotional; the social and the all the problems and worries that come with it; and then the spiritual of why me? Whether you have a faith or not, if you are young and you are dying, you wonder why it is happening to you.
I welcome the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, but I caution that there is always a problem with time limits. Different diseases take different courses, and some may go into remission and be in remission for a phase and then may suddenly accelerate. The principle of somebody faced with a life-threatening illness is one that we have to take on board as a whole and not pretend that if we put some framework round it, that would solve a problem. There are examples of good practice, and fortunately, I think the NHS has done well by its staff.
I have friends and colleagues who have died in service. Indeed, the boy I was brought up with died in service in International Harvesters, which kept him employed on its books for quite a long time because he outlived his prognosis.
What about the family? When someone becomes ill, they still have all their skills, which are often transferable. With a bit of imagination in the workforce, they can be built on to help workers to learn from that person and hand on their skills. The spouse will of course be devastated, but there is also psychological damage for the children of seeing their parents rejected. That is the parent who stayed at work rather than fetch them from school, who was not always there to do things because they were worrying about work, but work has thrown them out. That will destroy their whole concept of society and the value structure.
We must not forget that 90% of children know what is going on when their parent is ill or dying. What kind of a society are we if we give these children the message that their parent is now on the scrapheap and being rejected? That will destroy their work ethic for life.
Lastly, I hope that HR departments will recognise that the evidence is that productivity goes up if you have someone who the rest of the workforce is looking after. Productivity rises because everyone can focus on what is a really big problem, and all those little moans and undermining comments vanish. Those things that demoralise the workforce tend to disappear, so it is also a good financial investment.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, I share the general commendation for the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for bringing forward this very important issue. When I put my name down to speak in this debate, I asked several business colleagues what they thought: what steps should be taken to prevent workers being dismissed from their jobs following diagnosis of a terminal illness. To a man and woman, they said, “That would not happen”. They could not envisage circumstances in which it would happen.
Clearly, there is a mismatch between where we are in the law and what people think ought to be the case. Obviously, nobody in their right mind would think that anybody should be dismissed, even if they have a terminal illness, if they are capable of carrying on doing their job. Nobody in their right mind would think that anyone should be dismissed because they have been injured or hurt in the course of performing their employment duties.
As always in these cases, the devil is in the detail. The example of Jacci Woodcock exemplifies why. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, described very well his relatives’ position, not that I have ever met them. I come from a corporate law background, and, in that world, there were standard service provisions in employment contracts under which, if anyone was incapable of doing their job through ill health, for a period, they had full pay, then for another period they had half pay. After that period was at an end, they had no pay. I suspect that the reason that his relatives had not dealt with this issue was because they came from a world of service contracts that made all those provisions.
Again, the devil is in the detail. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has been very creative in suggesting how the situation can be made certain through the use of statutory instruments rather than primary legislation because, as we all know, with the Government’s obsession with Brexit, the chance of getting any primary legislation on the statute book this side of 2080 is pretty remote.
I urge that the noble Lord’s suggestion be adopted. As the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said, the remarks of Mr Clark today are very opportune: the Government are looking at what to do to improve and tidy up the whole area of employment. This is a very worthwhile commitment to what he is trying to do.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for his opening remarks and declare an interest as a member and former member of staff of the GMB trade union. I echo the noble Lord’s call for action from the Government. My colleagues and I on the Opposition Benches support the proposals outlined and agree that the protections afforded to terminally ill workers need to be strengthened. I take this opportunity to praise the work of Jacci Woodcock—it is lovely to see her here today—the TUC and my union, the GMB, which launched the Dying to Work campaign and have raised significant awareness of this important issue.
However, this is not just a trade union issue. As was touched on earlier, this campaign has considerable support from employers across both the public and private sectors. In addition to the support from the business community, the campaign has been endorsed by third-sector organisations that work to support people with terminal illnesses—as we heard earlier from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—such as Breast Cancer Care, Second Hope, Marie Curie, the National Council for Palliative Care and Hospice UK.
Businesses, trade unions and wider civic society are united in a desire to see the loopholes closed so that vulnerable workers are not living under the constant threat of dismissal during their end-of-life period. This could be done quickly and effectively using secondary legislation. Providing more security to terminally ill workers and their families should not divide us; instead, I am certain this can bring together Members from across the House. This is not an issue of left or right but of right and wrong.
From a new apprentice all the way through to a CEO, a terminal diagnosis can strike anyone at any time. No one trying to cope with a terminal illness should find themselves forced out of work and losing the death-in-service payments that can provide financial security for the family they leave behind.
My fellow Peers will be all too aware of the difficulties surrounding a terminal diagnosis following the powerful and moving speech earlier this year by my friend and colleague the late Baroness Jowell, which received universal acclaim and support from across the House. Tessa commented in her speech that terminally ill people,
“need to know that they have a community around them, supporting and caring, being practical and kind”.
Our society’s values, which demand such care and kindness, do not stop at the door of our workplace, and we should expect and demand the same practical and kind support from every employer of a terminally ill worker. Tessa concluded her speech by saying:
“In the end, what gives a life meaning is not only how it is lived, but how it draws to a close”.—[Official Report, 25/1/18; col. 1170.]
For some people, that will mean maintaining the positive stimulation, normality and dignity of being in work and not being forced out of work by an unscrupulous employer. I believe the proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, will give people the choice about how they spend the final few weeks or months of their lives. Some will decide to leave work, take ill health retirement, bring forward their pension or take any other action that may be in their interest. This proposal does not force people to stay in work but instead gives working people the ability to select the right option for themselves and their families based on their own personal and financial circumstances.
In the Prime Minister’s first speech outside Downing Street, she made a number of pledges to provide support for working people. Sadly, however, we have seen precious few examples of this rhetoric in action. One such pledge made by the Prime Minister to working people was to,
“do everything we can to give you more control over your lives”.
Here is a cost-free opportunity, with support from across this House and the other place, to provide a very vulnerable group of people with control over the last chapter of their lives. This proposal also has overwhelming public support; a recent Survation poll showed that over 79% of people supported these changes.
Clearly, this is not only the right thing to do but it makes good practical sense, and I challenge the Government to grasp this golden opportunity and demonstrate that the Prime Minister meant what she said when she took office. However, this is not just about politics but about people, so I will share a story which appeared in the Nottingham Post on this very day last year, to demonstrate why we must act on this issue:
“Karen Land, 39, had just finished training for her dream job of becoming a firefighter when she was told she had three months to live”.
Karen, who had previously been a stay-at-home mum, a parent of five, had just finished firefighter training when she was diagnosed. She said:
“‘It’s all happened so quickly. Nine weeks ago I was fit and healthy and training for my dream job and now I have three months left. It is almost surreal, I think I am still in shock … This job meant everything to me. It was so hard to get on the training course, and I put so much work into it.… Tracy Crump, the service’s head of people and organisational development, said: ‘Our people are our Service, and their health and wellbeing is massively important to us, so I’m really pleased that we have been able to sign this charter to set in stone our commitment to ensuring that any employee with a terminal illness has much needed security, stability and peace of mind’”.
I commend Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue for signing the TUC Dying to Work voluntary charter and making this important commitment to Ms Land and their other employees.
Work was clearly important to Karen, and it is great that her employer has supported her and her family in this way. I hope that many other employers go on to do the same. However, we know that too often, people in Karen’s position can find that they are suddenly forced through stressful HR procedures with the constant threat of losing their job, putting their family’s future financial security at risk. Living with a terminal diagnosis is challenging enough without this additional stress and strain.
Before I conclude, I thank my union, the GMB, for its support, and in particular Richard Oliver.
For all these reasons, I support the proposals as set out and hope that my fellow Peers from across the House can continue to work together on this issue. The Government must act to ensure that every terminally ill worker has the protection and support they need during the final few weeks and months of their lives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, I echo the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and other speakers, in offering my congratulations to Jacci Woodcock on all that she has done in this area, because so much of what we are talking about is part of that educative process. I also praise the TUC for its campaign and the work it does in this field. I thank my noble friend Lord Balfe for tabling this Question and for securing such speakers as the right reverend Prelate, with his expertise from the Church, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, whose expertise in this field needs no repeating, and my noble friend Lord Horam, with his experience of Rowntree’s and other employers of that sort.
My noble friend Lord Horam mentioned that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy had made a Statement setting out his plans. I can assure my noble friend that the Minister will make a Statement later today but other things will have got in the way, so I am not sure when. I was hoping to repeat that Statement today but it is likely to be tomorrow. In it, we will set out a work plan as a carefully considered and ambitious approach to the Taylor review. I hope that the noble Lord will be there tomorrow, along with others, when that Statement is repeated. I see the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, nodding, so I am sure he will be there.
The period following a diagnosis of terminal illness is an incredibly difficult time. Noble Lords will agree, I am sure, that employees who suffer from a terminal illness should not have any additional burdens placed on them, particularly any worry that they may be unfairly dismissed from their employment due to illness. For that reason, the Government strongly encourage all employers to treat employees with disabilities and related conditions with sensitivity and compassion. My noble friend raised a number of points during the debate, and I will set out just some of the current protections available to employees suffering from disabilities. We have some of the strongest equalities legislation in the world, and we will continue to make sure that these rights are protected. I think we can say in all honesty that we are recognised as a world leader in this field.
The 2010 Act, which has been referred to, provides protections such that disabled workers with chronic diseases or conditions, whether terminal or not, or debilitating illnesses are fully protected from any discriminatory conduct by their employers. Provided that a person meets the definition for having a disability, they will be protected under the legislation and it will be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against them because of their disability. Under employment law, an employee who is unlawfully dismissed or forced to resign from a job because of a terminal illness may bring a claim of unfair dismissal against their employer, and/or a claim of disability discrimination under the 2010 Act.
More generally, it is the Government’s view that, where an employee is unable to attend work due to an illness, dismissal should be a last resort and an employer should consider as many ways as possible to support the employee back to work. This should be informed, where appropriate, by a medical report from the employee’s GP—with permission—or by arranging an occupational health assessment.
Employees who consider that their dismissal was unfair can complain to an employment tribunal, generally subject to a qualifying period of two years’ continuous service. A tribunal will usually expect the employer to have sought advice on how long the employee was likely to remain absent, or whether he or she was likely to be persistently absent in future. Should the tribunal deem the dismissal unfair, the employee would be entitled to a basic award—set at the same level as statutory redundancy pay—and a compensatory award. The latter would be based on the tribunal’s assessment of the employee’s loss of earnings, pension rights and so on.
My noble friend, and other noble Lords, spoke of the TUC’s Dying to Work campaign. That aims to ensure that terminal illness is recognised as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act so that an employee with a terminal illness would enjoy a protected period against dismissal by an employer as a result of illness. We fully support the objective of enabling employees with life-threatening conditions to continue working for as long as possible. We believe that the workplace rights of people with terminal illnesses are already protected by the Act, and I am not convinced that additional protection is required.
If my noble friend were to look at Schedule 1(8) to the Equality Act, it makes it clear that those with progressive conditions are likely to meet the definition of disability and so be protected. Further, under that Act protection from discrimination is already available to those diagnosed as having a chronic, progressive or life-limiting disease. Terminal illnesses fall within this bracket, and the Act and associated guidance make it clear that those with progressive conditions whose effects increase in severity over time should be regarded as meeting the criteria for having a disability before the condition actually has that effect.
My noble friend also made the point that despite the provisions of the Equality Act, it is still possible for an employer to dismiss a worker on grounds of capability. That is true only to the extent that the dismissal does not breach the protections in that Act. For example, a dismissal will be unlawful if it is based on something which arises from the worker’s disability and is not justified as a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate aim. So, the Government are not persuaded of the need to legislate, whether that be by primary legislation, which the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, thought would take some time, or secondary legislation. Furthermore, the Government’s view is that a new characteristic will not stop bad employers flouting the law, while those merely behaving in ignorance of the law are best addressed through education and guidance.
I note also my noble friend’s point regarding reforms to statutory sick pay. We want to see a reformed statutory sick pay system which supports more flexible working, for example, to help support phased returns to work, including spacing out working days during a return to work, while managing a long-term health condition or when recovering from illness. Offering periods of flexible working may help people to manage or recover from a health condition. However, SSP is currently inflexible and creates a financial disincentive for employees to consider some forms of phased return to work. We are taking forward further policy development and will bring forward a consultation on these changes, as well as any other SSP changes that we identify in our wider work, before introducing this reform. The Government will consult on measures to encourage and support all employers to play their part in this vital agenda and improve access to occupational health.
My noble friend also mentioned the duty on employers to provide reasonable adjustments for those with disabilities. This duty is not a once-only action or consideration. It requires review, adaptation and ongoing support as people’s needs change and develop. An employer will need to anticipate their employee’s evolving needs and adapt the adjustments to the reality of their time in the workplace. However, the duty to provide reasonable adjustments is not limitless; the Equality Act contains qualifications to the protections it provides across the protected characteristics. It makes it clear that the adjustments that should be made and the protections provided have to be reasonable in all the circumstances, taking into account a variety of factors, including the resources and circumstances of the business in question. This concept is well understood in law and generally thought to be working well. Disabled people have brought successful claims under these provisions where employers have got the balance wrong on what is reasonable. We believe that to define in legislation what constitutes “reasonable” in a particular circumstance would begin to undermine the nature of the Act and its ability to apply to the circumstances of individual cases, which has been the backbone of disability legislation since it was introduced in 1995.
Although I am naturally concerned by and sympathetic to the plight of anyone who receives such a diagnosis, I do not believe it would be reasonable to expect an employer to retain people on their books indefinitely if they are no longer able to carry out work once all reasonable adjustments have been made. I fear that the unintended consequences of such a change in the law could be significant.
My noble friend Lord Balfe also talked about the need for better training in HR. He cited the experience of his two daughters. I assure him that guidance and practical workshops are available on the ACAS website. ACAS also published specific guidance on potentially life-threatening conditions in September 2016.
I emphasise that the Government are committed to improving the lives of all people with disabilities, terminal illnesses and related conditions, and to making the UK a country where everyone can achieve their full potential. To achieve this, we believe that it is imperative for all employers to be aware of and fulfil their legal obligations towards their employees, including disabled and terminally ill employees. For this reason, we believe that the guidance and practical training available from ACAS and its website should encourage and assist all employees. I end by recommending that all employers make use of those resources.
Homes: Gas Safety
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the current standard of gas safety in homes in the United Kingdom.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to open this short debate on gas safety. I must declare my patronage of CO-Gas Safety and Consumer Safety International. Both organisations and their leaders, Stephanie Trotter and Molly Maher, have done amazing work in raising the issues of carbon monoxide poisoning. which is the main subject of my debate. I am also extremely grateful to gas experts Stephen Hadley and Mr Ross McColgan for their advice.
Carbon monoxide is a colourless, odourless gas that can be poisonous to humans. When carbon-based fuels do not burn properly, poisonous excess CO is produced. When CO enters the body, it prevents the blood bringing oxygen to cells, tissues and organs. Key dangers to the population from gas in their home come from work being done illegally by a non-registered engineer and people not getting their appliances serviced regularly. The safety situation is worsened by the fact that CO alarms are required only in private rented accommodation and only if a solid-fuel-burning appliance is installed. The reliability of CO alarms is also very varied and Gas Safe Register does not always provide the reassurance required. All this is compounded by a lack of public awareness.
The scale of the problem is not easy to assess. ONS-published data shows that in 2016, 49 deaths occurred from accidental CO poisoning in England and Wales. In contrast, the Cross Government Group on Gas Safety and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Awareness estimates there to be around 30 deaths a year. I believe that both those figures are gross underestimates. CO has to be suspected before it is tested, even in the event of unexplained deaths. It dissipates quickly in live bodies and, without proof of poisoning, doctors often wrongly diagnose other conditions. In the absence of any easily obtained data, the problem of CO is underestimated and, as a result, it is not given the priority that it deserves.
I am convinced that much more needs to be done to raise public awareness. Some progress has been made—we have Gas Safety Week—but we need to do much more. I would like to see the industry contribute through a levy to fund major campaigns. This was recommended years ago by the Health and Safety Commission but little has happened since, and I think that the industry needs to be held to account.
We also have to tackle the need for proper maintenance of gas equipment by gas safety registered engineers. As the All-Party Parliamentary Carbon Monoxide Group has said, there are different reasons why people do not get their appliances serviced but the key two are that many people are not aware of the importance of having this done regularly and many cannot afford to get it done because it is expensive to do on an annual basis. It is appropriate that the DWP is responsible for our health and safety. We need better support for low-income households to address this fuel poverty gap.
We also need to look at the anecdotal evidence that some landlords are not meeting their legal obligations and that tenants are either not aware of their rights or are too afraid to challenge their landlords to produce a gas safety certificate. I find it surprising that policy 8.2 from Gas Safe Register means that inspectors from the GSR will test an appliance for a tenant only if the landlord gives permission. Why should the landlord have to give permission when the safety of the tenant is possibly at stake? Can the Minister confirm that the gas emergency service does not carry or use equipment to test gas appliances for CO? If that is the case, will she say why and what is going to be done about it?
I now come to the gas safety register. This contains the official list of engineers who are qualified to work on gas installations. Engineers are issued with a gas safe card to prove qualification status and other details in order to carry out work or repairs to a gas appliance. The back of the card has a list of the types of appliances the engineer can legally work on. Unfortunately, many clients, me included, are unaware that gas engineers have to carry those cards and I am not aware of engineers showing those cards when they visit. It is also difficult to understand and decipher what appliance the engineer is qualified to work on. Ross McColgan has suggested to me the use of a colour scheme to make this much clearer, stating in simple language what the engineer is qualified to do and, more importantly, what they are not entitled to work on. It would be a step forward. I hope the Government will consider this.
I come to CO alarms. They have their use, but they are not a panacea and must be accompanied by annual checks of gas appliances. In 2015, the Government introduced regulations to require private rented sector landlords to have a carbon monoxide alarm in any room wholly or partly used as living accommodation containing a solid-fuel burning combustion appliance. There is currently a review about whether this should be extended. I certainly support expanding the regulations to require a CO alarm to be installed wherever any fuel-burning appliance is installed. Is the Minister aware that respected experts, including Mr Harry Rogers and Mr Stephen Hadley, have raised concerns that the present manufactured CO alarms available in the UK lose their reliability and accuracy as they deteriorate over time? I understand that CO alarms are not required to be calibrated during their lifespan so consumers have no way of knowing whether they are still effective. PROSAFE—the Product Safety Forum of Europe—whose objective is to improve the safety of users of products and services in Europe, highlighted the results of sampling and testing CO detectors. This was discussed at the fifth Carbon Monoxide round table in 2015. Twenty-five products were sampled and tested against a specified checklist. Eighteen of the 25 did not comply with the checklist. Four models failed to meet the requirements in a safe manner and only three products were deemed acceptable. This does not give much confidence in CO alarms. I am absolutely clear that regular testing of gas appliances is much more important than CO alarms, which in many cases clearly cannot be relied upon.
I am looking forward to the Minister’s response on Brexit. Regulation 2016/426 on appliances burning gaseous fuels came into force earlier this year. In the event of Brexit, is it the Government’s intention that we will maintain those standards long term? Will she also say what is being done to protect the safety of UK tourists abroad? Have we learned the lessons from the tragic deaths of Christianne and Robert Shepherd from Horbury near Wakefield? They were just seven and six years old when they died from carbon monoxide poisoning from a faulty boiler on a Thomas Cook holiday in Corfu in October 2006. After many years of brave campaigning by the family, an inquest jury concluded that the children had been unlawfully killed and that Thomas Cook had breached its duty of care. What guarantees do we now have that UK tourists travelling abroad will be protected from this kind of incident? Anyone who has met families where CO poisoning has taken place will be aware of the personal tragedies that have befallen them. We owe it to them to do all we can to prevent these tragedies reoccurring. We need stronger regulation, a more effective gas safety register, reassurance on the reliability of CO alarms, and, above all, stronger public awareness campaigns, paid by a levy from industry. I am convinced there is much we can do to improve gas safety and I very much look forward to a positive response from the Minister.
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for introducing this short debate and for giving us the opportunity to talk in particular about carbon monoxide poisoning. I declare an interest as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Carbon Monoxide Group.
I think that for the majority of people, gas safety is about ensuring a safe gas distribution network and safe appliances which do not lead to dangerous gas leaks and possible explosions. On the whole, we have a fairly good record of safety in our gas network in the UK. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in my remarks today I will concentrate on carbon monoxide poisoning and the resulting deaths and life-changing conditions.
I first came across carbon monoxide poisoning when I was the Member of Parliament for Christchurch in the early 1990s, and tragically, it was as the result of the death of one of my constituents. So it was that I became aware of others who had lost family members to carbon monoxide poisoning. I then worked with others, campaigning to raise the profile of this silent killer and to put in place measures to prevent further tragedies. I became a patron of CO-Gas Safety and worked with it for several years. When I was no longer able to continue to do so, I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was able to take up the mantle and work with it. CO-Gas Safety has been run by Stephanie Trotter, and I pay tribute to her unstinting campaigning energy. In the early days, she was assisted by Molly Maher, who also campaigned in particular for safer holidays. Molly had lost her son to carbon monoxide poisoning while on a family break in Tenerife—an incident which also left her daughter disabled and a wheelchair user. Tragically, we still see holidays marred by carbon monoxide poisoning, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, set out clearly in his opening remarks. Indeed, they were so comprehensive that it is difficult to add to this short debate, so I will just add my support to a few of the important issues still to be resolved.
First, the lack of awareness of carbon monoxide poisoning is still a huge problem. CO-Gas Safety ran a carbon monoxide awareness campaign in primary schools for some years, and I understand that this is now run by the gas distribution network. However, this has a limited coverage and influence, and there should be a national PR campaign to warn of the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning. I therefore strongly support the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for a levy on gas supplies to pay for a public awareness campaign, as well as for research. Research is particularly important because, as we have already heard, obtaining reliable data about the number of people affected by carbon monoxide poisoning is difficult. As we have already heard, carbon monoxide can be detected in the body only for a very short time after somebody dies, and no automatic testing is carried out on dead bodies where death is unexplained. Headaches and nausea dissipate when the person concerned leaves the premises where they have been in contact with, and poisoned by, carbon monoxide. General practitioners need to be aware that headaches and nausea can be the result of carbon monoxide poisoning. In my early days of looking into this issue, some research showed that this was not always the case. Does the Minister have any information about whether this has now been highlighted in the training of general practitioners?
The second issue I will highlight and support is the testing of appliances and equipment, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also covered. Testing should include the flue gases, not just a simple gas safety check, and tests should be annual and include alarms—although we have heard that alarms are not a panacea, and I totally agree with that. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I would welcome information in the government review about whether carbon monoxide alarms should be fitted in all houses and on appliance testing.
Wearing my hat as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Carbon Monoxide Group, I add my call to those of Barry Sheerman MP and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for expanded regulations following the recent government review to cover all fuel-burning appliances in all types of housing. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will speak in the gap and I am sure she will expand on that herself.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, it would also be helpful if the Minister could indicate how Brexit will affect all the regulations on gas safety. Will there be any lessening of safety standards? I also have another question to the Minister about carbon monoxide alarms—reflected in the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. What indication do the Government have about substandard alarms in the supply chain? I ask this wearing another hat as president of the National Home Improvement Council. We have been very concerned about all sorts of products coming on to the market that do not comply with the standards they are supposed to, particularly when people order online.
What comfort can the Minister give to families that they will get help and support to bring to justice those who, through neglect or bad workmanship, cause tragedies where carbon monoxide poisoning strikes at home or abroad? The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, outlined just how difficult this can be.
Although some progress has been made in tackling death from carbon monoxide poisoning, I find it very disappointing that, 20 years on from my early days dealing with this, I am still asking the same questions and looking for more action to prevent death through carbon monoxide poisoning from industry.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for having brought this debate to the House, and to the Committee for allowing me to speak in the gap. I must declare my role as a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Carbon Monoxide Group and the chair of two reports that have come from that group. I also work with the clinical group that has been a spin-off from this. I will address prevention, detection, long-term problems and regulation going forwards.
Nobody should think that prevention is associated only with gas. As has already been said, all fuel appliances—anything that burns carbon—can produce carbon monoxide. The biggest problem now is not gas but other ways of burning. Barbecues that people think are safe to bring into a cold tent, because they look as if they have gone out and are just slightly glowing, are an amazing source of poisonous carbon monoxide. Year on year, there are deaths because people do that. The same thing happens with appliances on boats and in caravans. Somehow, when people are on holiday they seem to be less vigilant.
Nobody should think they are safe because they do not have any carbon-burning appliance in their place. Stacey Rodgers, a constituent of Barry Sheerman MP, lost her son because the carbon monoxide from an adjacent property came through the brickwork into the child’s bedroom and the child was found dead in the morning from carbon monoxide poisoning. He was her only child.
Turning to detection, alarms are great but are no substitute for having appliances properly serviced and being aware. The problem with carbon monoxide is that it is not only linked to carboxyhaemoglobin. It is probably also a mitochondrial poison within cells, which means it kills very quickly, even if there are low levels of carboxyhaemoglobin in the blood. However, in one of the reports, we called for all coroners’ post-mortems to test anyway for carboxyhaemoglobin because, if there is any present at all, that must raise questions. Detection has to be early.
People associate carbon monoxide poisoning with death but severe acute poisoning can result in “sub-death”, with strokes, brain damage, personality changes and so on. About 4,000 people attend A&E every year with the symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning, but we do not know the long-term effect of low-level chronic exposure in those who run at a sub-clinical level and never present with their symptoms, and we do not know the effect on children. I remind noble Lords that a child’s head is at about the same height as the burners on a gas cooker, so if there are high levels of carbon monoxide in a kitchen, a child will probably inhale higher levels than an adult, whose head will be above that level and might be in the flow of the draught from a window. We need ongoing research into the low-level effects.
My final point relates to properties. It is a scandal that we do not insist that every landlord has a working carbon monoxide alarm. These alarms cost less than £15, which is peanuts. We should also require that whenever someone takes out a mortgage, they declare that they have a working carbon monoxide alarm, and no estate agent should list a property unless they know that the appliances have been properly serviced and that a working detection system is in place. If we did that, we would raise awareness, at least when there was a turnover of residents in a property.
In terms of travelling, we need airlines and Eurostar to run promotions asking “Are you carbon monoxide aware? Do you have your travel alarm?” Such alarms could easily be sold at all outlets at airports and stations. I also think that we need a levy that goes wider than gas suppliers, because appliances such as barbecues and wood-burning stoves are now sources of carbon monoxide.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for securing this very useful debate. As did he, I express my gratitude to Stephanie Trotter for her excellent—and in my case very necessary—full briefing.
Before I go any further, I should declare some interests. First, I am one of quite a number of vice-presidents of the Local Government Association. I am co-president of London Councils, the body that represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London, and, probably most relevant to this debate, I am a patron of Electrical Safety First, a charity whose name is self-explanatory.
My noble friend Lady Maddock said that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, covered many points in his very comprehensive introduction. Since then, there have been two speakers, who have added to the comprehensive nature of the debate and there is not a great deal that I can add to what they have said. We all look forward to the Minister’s reply to quite a number of important questions that she has been asked.
Throughout the debate thus far, I have reflected on the similarity between gas safety and electrical safety. There are obvious differences between gas and electricity, which I obviously do not need to draw out, but there are also a number of very important similarities, especially with regard to safety and I have been very struck by those during the debate. They include the need to raise public awareness, the relationship between landlord and tenant, and the different responsibilities that each has and so on.
Accidents from either cause, and indeed from any cause, can have devastating and life-changing consequences and are thus serious. I do not want to make comparisons between accidents involving carbon monoxide and those involving electricity—the effects are devastating whatever the cause—but, as they do with gas, the public take electricity for granted. I had not realised until it was pointed out to me that next year will be the 140th anniversary of the invention of the light bulb. That is now one new point that has been made in this debate. We all recognise the importance of that invention to our lives today, but despite this iconic electrical item, which is always to be found wherever we are, we should remember that even light bulbs, let alone white goods, consumer units, cabling and so on, just like gas, are all potentially dangerous when not used properly or properly maintained.
Gas safety is extremely important, but so is electrical safety, and it needs to be treated with the same respect and importance. According to Electrical Safety First, electricity causes more than 20,000 house fires every year—almost half of all accidental house fires. Every year, around 350,000 people in the UK are injured through contact with electricity, and 70 people are killed. The figures for accidents involving carbon monoxide, as has been stated already, are difficult to verify and therefore I will not make a comparison—there is no point in doing so solely on the basis of figures. Both are extremely important and need to be recognised as such.
There are, on average, 56 deaths a year in Great Britain caused by electrical fires, including 18 deaths caused by an electrical distribution fault in the home. Within this subset, the biggest single cause of death is faulty cabling. For example, London Fire Brigade figures indicate that in 2013-14 the consumer unit was the source of ignition in 253 fires; this equates to five fires every week. Recent data from the London Fire Brigade shows that at that point in 2018, fires caused by electricity accounted for 78.5% of all fires. In the last five years, accidental appliance fires attributed to gas were 370 and to electricity 13,155. That is an astonishing disparity. I recognise that there is uncertainty about the data, particularly with regard to the number of fires caused by carbon monoxide, but it indicates that electrical safety is at least as important, and needs to be recognised as such.
That is why I have long joined Electrical Safety First, and others, in campaigning for greater equality between gas and electricity. Your Lordships may recall the Housing and Planning Act and the long-fought campaign to ensure that people in the private rented sector—after Grenfell that should include the social rented sector—receive mandatory electrical safety checks every year. People in the private rented sector must receive a gas check every year—we have talked about the shortcomings of that—but electricity has never been granted even that level of importance.
As a result of a long-fought campaign by Electrical Safety First, the Government agreed to bring forward regulations for mandatory electrical safety checks every five years. During the Second Reading debate of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill on 23 November, I asked when we would see these regulations. In a letter to me and other speakers in that debate, dated 5 December, the Minister said that they would be introduced,
“as soon as parliamentary time allows”.
It may be that since the letter was written, only a couple of weeks ago, there is even more pressure on parliamentary time, so we may well be waiting quite a while yet. Can the Minister reassure me, however, and say what priority the Ministry is giving to getting this parliamentary time?
In the same debate, I asked whether the promised regulations will cover both private and social rented sectors. In his letter of 5 December, the Minister confirmed that the consultation on that closed on 6 November and that,
“the Government’s response will be published in due course”.
That is a well-worn parliamentary expression. Surely the Government must know their response by now, and whether the social rented sector will be included. Can the Minister at least tell us that today?
In the same letter, the Minister said that,
“a full Government response to the consultation will be issued before Christmas”—
a little better than “in due course” but in parliamentary terms, that is now three days away. Indeed, I heard today that a ministerial Statement is expected tomorrow. Will the Minister at least confirm that? As there are not many people here today, perhaps she will give us some taste of what may be in that ministerial Statement, if it comes tomorrow or whenever it comes before Christmas? Electrical Safety First also informed me that it has received no further communication from the Government on the plans, nor been kept up to date on progress. How do we therefore know that electricity and gas will receive the equal attention that they deserve? Who is representing consumers during the working-up of these regulations?
What worries me further is the enforcement of gas and electrical safety in the private rented sector. Councils are responsible for enforcing gas safety and assist with significant electrical hazards in the home. But who will prevent landlords being able to rent a property that is not fit to be rented? I recently raised this too at Second Reading of the Bill to which I have already referred. Will the Minister confirm whether this will be clear from the “full Government response” promised in the next few days?
I have spoken more about electrical safety than gas safety, mainly because I know rather more about it but particularly because the three speakers before me covered things so well. While I echo what they said, I did not want to take time by repeating their points. Both electricity and gas are important and I hope that the Minister will now be able to reassure us on both of them.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this debate, initiated by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I know that his interest in the matter was sparked when he had ministerial responsibility for it in the DWP. As it happened, I followed him in having ministerial responsibility for these matters in 2007 but not, of course, with the distinction that he brought to the role. The issue of gas safety in homes is serious and has been the subject of increasing yet still incomplete regulation. We have had a light-bulb moment from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who I know has worked hard in this area. He has expanded the agenda a little and made a valuable contribution to our debate.
As a start, I believe there is an established and shared understanding of the nature of the problem. Carbon monoxide—as has been said, the silent killer—is a poisonous, colourless and odourless gas, which if breathed in enters the bloodstream and mixes with haemoglobin. This makes it progressively more difficult to carry oxygen around the body, potentially causing the body’s cells and tissues to die. My noble friend Lord Hunt referred to the number killed in England and Wales in 2016 as 49, but with many more made unwell. We have had two figures suggested, with one of 200 requiring hospitalisation and the other of 4,000 attending A&E. I am not sure how reconcilable those figures are but perhaps the Minister can help us out. There are concerns about the accuracy of numbers because the symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning are not always obvious. Exposure to low levels of it can present as food poisoning and flu, while longer-term exposure to low levels of CO can lead to neurological symptoms.
Reference was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to the APPG’s suggestion that coroners should routinely test for carboxyhaemoglobin levels. I believe she sees that not as the panacea but as an important step that ought to be undertaken. My noble friend Lord Hunt seeks a view from the Minister on this, as does the noble Baroness; similarly, I look forward to the reply. The noble Baroness reminded us that this is about not just gas but other fuels—it is about barbecues, boats and caravans. Raising awareness of the risks associated with carbon monoxide is a vital component in preventing more deaths and injuries.
I agree with noble Lords who have highlighted the role of such campaigning groups as CO-Gas Safety and the Carbon Monoxide Awareness Charity. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, spoke strongly on this, particularly on how she initially got involved. It is encouraging that they are still in the field, with their encouragement and leadership of awareness campaigns, putting pressure on government, local government, safety charities, regulators and parliamentarians. Indeed, I have felt the heat from their campaigning myself. Energy companies must not be let off the hook on this. What are they doing? We have heard that there is no sign of the levy, which has long been campaigned for. We should recognise that the campaigners’ passion and determination is often bred of personal tragedies—a loved one lost to CO poisoning—which they do not want visited on others.
The risks, of course, are not only in the home. Reference has been made by several noble Lords to the tragic deaths of two young children while on holiday in Corfu, and the long wait the family endured to see justice. I recall that at the time, issues were raised about alerts in holiday brochures about the risks of defective provision of cookers, heaters, boilers and of blocked flues and chimneys. An improvement suggestion at the time was at least to carry some reference to these risks on Foreign Office travel alerts. Perhaps the Minister can say what, if anything, is happening on this front. Can she also say what, if any, government funding is available to support awareness campaigns?
Raising awareness of CO risks is part of the approach needed to combat deaths and illness, but robust regulation is also needed to cover what equipment, who should be qualified to install it, who should test it and how often. As we heard from my noble friend, qualifications to work on gas installations were changed some years ago by the replacement of CORGI by the Gas Safe Register via an open competition. The Gas Safe Register should contain the official list of engineers, giving details of the types of appliances individuals can legally work on. My noble friend raised some practical suggestions to improve the operation of the register to help consumers better to understand the level of qualification involved and the assurance that they should be receiving. We look forward to the Minister’s reply on that.
Can the Minister provide some information about levels of compliance with these arrangements and the extent to which individuals are working outside these requirements? Who is responsible for overseeing compliance—we talked about the HSE—and can we have some details on the levels of enforcement notices and prosecutions? When CORGI was replaced by the Gas Safe Register, I recollect that it was planned that any surplus on the winding-up of the former which would accrue to the CORGI Trust would be made available to fund awareness campaigns. Is this correct, and what has happened?
Another vital aspect of regulation covers the requirement to have CO alarms and smoke alarms in certain properties. Since 2015, the private rented sector in England has been required to provide CO alarms in all properties containing a solid fuel-burning appliance. This brought properties built before October 2010 in line with new builds, which since 2010 have been required to have a CO alarm where a solid fuel appliance is installed. The 2015 requirement sits alongside the duty of landlords to equip each storey of the premises they let as living accommodation with a smoke alarm, and for there to be a CO alarm for any room which is used as living accommodation and which contains a solid fuel-burning combustion appliance. There is a whole host of exemptions from inclusion in these requirements, covering not only social landlords but care homes, hostels, refuges, and student halls of residence, to name but a few. How are the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning being dealt with in these situations? They seem to be outside those regulations, if I read them correctly.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, it is the duty of the local authority to determine whether remedial action for non-compliance with the 2015 regulations is required and to issue remedial notices where it is. Can the Minister provide any information about local housing authority compliance with this requirement—the number of notices and levels of action subsequently undertaken? What is the Government’s assessment of local authorities’ ability to resource their requirements under the regulations?
Having effective CO alarms is important but, as we have heard, is no substitute for regular and proper maintenance of appliances. Does the Minister have any information about the extent to which the 8 million CO alarms currently provided in rented accommodation are hard wired? My noble friend’s inquiry about the longevity and appropriateness of current provisions of these alarms raises serious questions about what is currently available.
The all-party parliamentary group has noted the increasing numbers of individuals and families living in private rented accommodation, with some 2.7 million at risk from unsafe gas appliances. There is also the uncomfortable correlation between low-income households and risks of carbon monoxide poisoning. So the commitment of the Government to review the regulations is welcome. It is understood that this will be part of a wider consideration of the private rented sector covering building regulations and fire safety.
In conclusion, I again thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for helping us to focus on the threat of CO poisoning, which remains despite substantial efforts by many over a number of years.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing this important debate to the House and to all noble Lords who have spoken with such authority and knowledge. I shall do my best to respond to their numerous questions. I think it is unlikely that I will get them all answered in 12 minutes, but I undertake to write to fill any gaps in my response and to give any points of clarification.
The Government take the risk and consequences of carbon monoxide poisoning very seriously. The UK has a regulatory regime that requires safe design of gas appliances and trained and competent engineers to install and maintain gas appliances, and strongly recommends the use of carbon monoxide alarms. In this way, we greatly reduce the risk in our homes. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked what we do when people do not meet the standard. In 2017-18, there were 75 suspensions involving a failure to demonstrate or apply competence, and an additional 19 partial suspensions for specific work categories. This is out of a total of 259 suspensions, so it is not as though we are not prepared to take action when that needs to happen. There were three removals in the same period, and competence was one of the reasons in each case. The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted three registered engineers in 2017-18 for breaches of gas safety. We are quite prepared to take action when it is needed, but I agree with all noble Lords that prevention is certainly better than cure.
I must deal with the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, sooner rather than later, because I like to manage expectations. A ministerial Statement is due tomorrow—I am not passing the buck; this is true—from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We will provide a written update when we find out what it is planning to do. I hope that it helps.
We take gas and electrical safety very seriously. I assure noble Lords that, as we have said, we will progress these when parliamentary time allows. That is all I can say at the moment.
Gas safety, and more broadly carbon monoxide awareness, is a truly cross-governmental issue. Carbon monoxide poisoning can come from the burning of any carbon-based fuel, such as mains gas, liquefied petroleum gas, oil, coke, coal and wood, which are used in many household appliances, and it comes into the remit of various departments.
For this reason, a cross-government group on gas safety and carbon monoxide awareness was convened to ensure a joined-up approach across departments. I added them up today—I think that there are 13 departments in the group. Other governmental bodies exist to improve gas safety and tackle carbon monoxide risks from all fuels. The group also aims to develop effective government strategies and to promote knowledge and understanding of gas safety and carbon monoxide risks, including how to manage them. Each year the cross-government group publishes its annual report, which provides a summary of the work carried out by its members, including the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales.
The 2006 figures quoted by the noble Lord provide an insight into the safety of homes at that point in time. It is important to recognise that much has been done over the past 12 years to improve gas safety. The report by the cross-government group on gas safety and carbon monoxide awareness uses the same ONS data on deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning, but focuses on accidental carbon monoxide poisoning where carbon monoxide is the main product—excluding the figures for accidental carbon monoxide poisoning from smoke, fire and flames, hence the lower figure.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made the point that we should do more on gas safety. I can only agree with him: we must keep improving our approach. Even though the trend for carbon monoxide poisoning is downward, we cannot afford to be complacent.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of carbon monoxide alarms. The Government’s review of carbon monoxide alarm requirements in England will consider new research and update the evidence base to establish whether alarm requirements, currently limited to solid fuel heating in the private rented sector, and in building regulations, should be extended to the installation of oil and gas boilers and to social housing. The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government is considering all the updated evidence and research with a view to consulting on any proposed changes early in 2019.
I was asked to comment on the impact of the smoke and carbon monoxide alarm regulations. A recent government consultation showed that there is good awareness of the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) regulations and that this has led to an increase in the number of alarms and safer homes. The response illustrates the lack of carbon monoxide alarms in private rented accommodation prior to the regulations coming into effect.
I was also asked whether I was satisfied that all CO alarms are constructed to a reliable and accurate standard, where the device’s sensor can be tested for its function and accuracy. Consumer products offered in the UK market, including carbon monoxide alarms, must comply with the UK’s strict product safety legislation, which requires products to be safe before they can be sold to consumers. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to ensure that CO alarms meet safety requirements and legislation. Making a misleading claim about compliance with the standard would be an offence under regulations providing consumer protection from unfair trading.
Another question was whether I was aware that respected experts had raised concerns about current alarms losing their reliability and accuracy as they deteriorate over time. The Government take the issue of consumer safety seriously and advise all consumers, when purchasing a domestic carbon monoxide alarm, to check that it is market-compliant with the relevant British or European standard.
There is a strong and appropriate regulatory regime in relation to gas safety and exposure to carbon monoxide. It is supported by additional activities focused on ensuring that gas engineers are properly trained and competent, raising public awareness of the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning, and improving early diagnosis of the system. The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 form the cornerstone of the existing regulatory framework and require engineers to refer to manufacturers’ instructions and appropriate standards when installing, commissioning and maintaining appliances. Where appropriate, or where the manufacturer’s instructions advise it, the engineer should use a flue gas analyser. These regulations have had a significant impact in reducing injuries and fatalities in this area.
I was asked about the recommendations of the All-Party Parliamentary Carbon Monoxide Group and I will write to noble Lords about that. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked why the gas emergency services do not carry or use equipment to test gas appliances for CO. The Gas Safety (Management) Regulations require gas emergency service providers to have arrangements for dealing with reported gas escapes and gas incidents, including those involving CO. This is a free emergency service and is not intended to identify the cause. It will be for the homeowner to engage a gas engineer to identify and solve the problem. I will write to the noble Lord about the mandatory label being placed in a visible position.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked whether the Government would comment on future policy changes. There are no policy changes other than a review of CO alarm requirements. Departments review the effectiveness of, and evidence base for, the current policies and for any proposed changes.
I turn to the important subject of Gas Safe engineers. Key parts of this legislation are the legal requirement that the installation and maintenance of gas appliances should be undertaken only by a suitably qualified and registered engineer, and the establishment of the Gas Safe Register. For engineers to be considered competent and to apply for Gas Safe registration, they must complete an approved industry-recognised training course, followed by an assessment of competence. Gas engineers then have their competence reassessed every five years. I was asked whether I was satisfied with the effectiveness of the training of gas installers. In short, the answer is yes.
In terms of product safety, gas appliances sold in the UK are regulated under the Gas Appliances Regulation. The Government take product safety extremely seriously and are committed to ensuring that only safe products are placed on the UK market. This will not change when the UK leaves the EU. We will ensure that the UK retains an effective product safety regime—that is a priority. On exit, appliances burning gaseous fuels will be able to be sold on the UK market only if they meet the higher level of safety, as they do now.
I turn to the point about Public Health England and national campaigns. Public Health England raises public and professional awareness of the impacts of carbon monoxide pollution by supporting activities that aim to change behaviour, such as the annual Clean Air Day, and it works with national and local stakeholders, public health partners and government departments to develop advice and actions which can be taken to prevent accidental exposure to carbon monoxide in homes.
I think that noble Lords also raised the question of people who, when abroad, suffer as a result of other countries not complying with safety regulations and not doing the things they should do. The Foreign Office provides support to families when things go wrong, but it is up to other countries to make sure that they comply with regulations, and I do not say that glibly. It is tragic when people die as a result of this poisoning, because it is preventable.
I am sorry to say that my time is up, but I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, reminded us of the 140th anniversary of the invention of the light bulb. I understand that Thomas Edison patented it the year after so that he could have two parties. I am not sure whether I have given your Lordships any light-bulb moments but I have tried to respond accurately. If I have missed anything, I undertake to write to all noble Lords.
Ukraine
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Waverley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the current situation in Ukraine.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, my objective in introducing this short debate is to bring general awareness before the Committee of some of the many complexities that surround Ukraine and to offer the Government an opportunity to outline their thoughts and strategy.
Amid the conflict, it is simple to forget the many domestic challenges, political and economic, that underpin Ukraine’s present situation and its future. On the macro level, growth is forecast to accelerate in 2018 to 4% and the IMF has announced a new tranche in response to its Government’s decision to step up the implementation of some long-delayed energy sector reforms and accelerate tough austerity measures. As the country grapples with its past, with conflicting visions for its future, endemic corruption in Ukraine is felt throughout domestic institutions at both local and state level. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine has been set up, which could improve the rule of law, but its independence is cited as being far from guaranteed due to its inability to secure prosecutions because of the unreliability and bias of the courts. A key ingredient lies in the programme of root-and-branch judicial reform.
Moves within the banking sector, including tighter and wider fiscal reforms and governance, have closed more than 80 underperforming banks in the past three years. A Washington-based organisation, the International Tax and Investment Center, with which I am associated, has held discussions with the tax and customs policy committee about reforming the tax system and working to define a road map to improve and ameliorate, if not reverse, Ukraine’s precarious economic state.
On the economic front, the ongoing trade embargo with the eastern regions has cut off access to all anthracite coal deposits. Ukraine is forced to purchase its needs from South Africa and the USA at a much more expensive rate, with inevitable grave economic effects. Ukraine is highly dependent on grain, iron and steel exports, making the Kerch Strait, the shallow Azov Sea and the bridge critical, while Russia is delaying shipping from entering and exiting fully laden. It is suggested that Ukraine might wish to consider developing alternative export infrastructure as part of a long-term strategy. Ports generally suffer from gross inefficiencies, with accusations of rampant corruption and poor infrastructure capacity. A suggestion doing the rounds is that an effective option might be to assist Ukraine in upgrading railway links and expanding other port facilities that bypass the Azov Sea.
Gas transit fees are a major source of revenue. However, the contested 1,200-kilometre Nord Stream gas pipeline, which will double the amount of natural gas flowing directly to Germany from Russia, is one of several Russian projects that circumvent Ukraine in order to give it access to its biggest markets. This bypass infrastructure is part of Russia’s strategy to weaken Ukraine economically and reduce its strategic importance for the EU. Germany is effectively supporting this strategy. Do the Government express opinions to Germany about this or does the Minister have a view he might wish to share with us? As an aside, I add that commercial opportunities exist for UK interests. For example, the Royal Mint called on me on Friday on unrelated matters, but I was interested to learn that Ukraine is considered to have great potential for that organisation.
On the political front, the reassurances given that martial law in 10 regions will not be used as a lever to postpone presidential elections on 31 March should be welcome. The elections in March will present a choice between the status quo and a move towards a change in direction. However, the expulsion of an Opposition Bloc presidential candidate from the party is likely to fragment the pro-Russian vote at the elections. It should be recorded that a far-right extremist group is gaining traction, though it is currently not well-represented in Parliament. A consequence of martial law is the fear that freedom of speech and assembly will be curtailed in those regions. It should be recorded for the purposes of this debate that opinion polls in Kiev this morning position two-thirds of Ukrainians as favouring a western orientation. Before i turn to matters relating directly to the conflict, will the Minister in his response say what steps the Government are taking to support economic and political development in Ukraine, including tackling the bane of corruption, which is essential if long-term investment in Ukraine is to be considered?
With that overview, I move on. Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the recent Azov Sea incident and the humanitarian and social consequences of the war in eastern Ukraine, with 10,000 people killed there, require urgent resolution. The downing of a Malaysia Airlines flight changed the dynamic into an international crisis and, as we have seen recently, there is potential for unstoppable escalation. On Saturday, for example, there were reports of major Russian troop build-up along Ukraine’s eastern border.
France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine have attempted to broker a cessation in violence through the Minsk accords. Efforts to reach a resolution have been unsuccessful thus far and show ominous signs of failure. This is to be regretted as good material is contained in the 13-article draft, including a large degree of regional autonomy. However, if Minsk is indeed foundering, where do we go to from here? Ukraine will not become a frozen conflict and should be viewed as a potential regional threat to peace that could envelop the West. No peace operation will succeed without a supportive Ukraine and Russian acquiescence. Two options are worth pursuing, as the US and NATO are unlikely to become directly involved. The first is a clear road map for de-escalation in eastern Ukraine, coupled with recognition that Russia accepts extrication linked to some sanction alleviation.
Peacekeepers monitoring the Ukraine-Russia border, together with a strong police presence and governance reform, would be a major test of Moscow’s good faith. It should be noted that representatives of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions re-affirmed in March a full commitment to a comprehensive, sustainable and unlimited ceasefire. The Government’s decentralisation programme might also be built upon to provide a positive environment, although a further complicating factor has arisen in the split of the Orthodox Churches, with the potential to further inflame nationalism on both sides.
That leaves us with the extraordinarily difficult situation of Crimea. I take it that President Putin was well aware that what occurred was illegal and what the international reaction would be. Why did he do it? Let there be no doubt: this theatre of overt operations is a cauldron. The positioning of aggressive front-line artillery firepower, along with the naval arrests and pending prosecutions, makes for potential unavoidable action. I reference and pay respects to the families of those on flight MH17, and those whose lives have been lost in this conflict to date. The UK, EU, US and others are adamant that Russia must leave Crimea. That appears unlikely thus far and, given that Ukraine will never become a frozen conflict, what do the Government believe should be the course of action if there is a dilution of attitude by key European partners or an impasse? How long will the Government give Minsk to resolve this before looking at alternatives? Should there be more effort to encourage Ukraine and Russia to resolve all matters bilaterally through an accommodation based on shared interests?
Given that a rapprochement between the UK and Russia currently appears remote, is the UK, as a joint custodian of world security at the United Nations, exploring avenues of reconciliation? Is it ever considered by the Government that President Putin would prefer to connect with the West but has no idea how to do it and is then pulled in a different direction by the old guard? Would understanding the origins help with a solution? Did the crisis begin with the decision of Ukraine to reject a deal for greater economic integration following the understanding with Yanukovych and did the EU push too hard, or were sensitivities a factor over the fear of losing the Crimean naval base? Then there is the NATO question: was there a miscalculation in understanding the importance of the Russia-Ukraine relationship, with the West not sending messaging and actions of inclusiveness following the break-up of the Soviet Union?
Russian political experts have over the weekend suggested that the UK is on the ground in Ukraine, managing and—as they view it—aggravating the situation. That question is also of interest to those attempting directly to broker a peace settlement. Will the Minister comment on what assets the UK has on the ground and with what objective, particularly in relation to article 10 in the Minsk draft calling for the withdrawal of all foreign armed groups, weapons and mercenaries from Ukrainian territory?
I issue a general word of caution. The international alliance should counsel Ukraine against any actions for political expediency that would draw the West directly into the conflict, but balance that with General Powell’s practical messaging when he said that you cannot control developments from the outside. Ukraine’s development is not just for Ukraine but for Russia. Russia needs a good example of how things can be done and so, ideally, would in some way be involved. It should be noted what Russia has achieved when implementing the rules; the World Bank’s Doing Business ratings for 2018 have it placed 31st, up from 170th in 2012. That is why it is important.
Lord Bowness (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords thank the noble Viscount for securing this short debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss Ukraine, and that other noble Lords participating in it have spent much more time in Ukraine than I have. My experience of the country is limited to a visit in 2007 to Kiev, which I remember well for its wonderful collection of golden-domed churches and the splendid idea of pedestrianizing the main street for shopping on a Sunday.
However, as a member and a vice-president of the OSCE parliamentary assembly, I am aware of the situation in Ukraine, especially since the commencement of the illegal separatist movement in 2014. The actions of the Russian Federation have been regularly and roundly condemned in debate and by resolutions of that parliamentary assembly, which is not constrained by the consensus rule of the OSCE itself. The Ukrainian case has been robustly put by the leader of its delegation, Artur Gerasimov, in the face of bare-faced denials and aggressive responses from representatives of the Russian Federation. I believe that we should recognise the important role of the OSCE but it seems to be regularly ignored. I could not find a reference to it in all the many column inches of the report of last Friday’s debate on reconciliation in your Lordships’ House. The OSCE special monitoring mission has an important role. It was deployed in March 2014. It is unarmed and present in all regions of Ukraine, and its main tasks are to observe and report impartially and to facilitate dialogue between the different parties to the crisis.
In September 2015, the first forward patrol bases in eastern Ukraine were established. These bases increase the presence in eastern Ukraine and enable the monitoring of the Minsk agreements. However, plans to work close to the unsecured border cannot be effectively operated until security guarantees for the mission are provided by the separatists or the Russian Federation. Already, one monitor has been killed and two others injured by the explosion of an anti-tank mine in Luhansk. An important objective must be to get the Ukrainian authorities back in control of their border with the Russian Federation. Any devolution envisaged under the Minsk agreements cannot realistically take place until the authority of the Ukrainians is established. Illegal elections only exacerbate the situation and make resolution more difficult.
It is therefore worrying that the Russian Federation originally blocked the extension of the mission’s mandate, although subsequently an extension to 31 March 2019 was achieved. What diplomatic efforts are the UK Government making to ensure the mandate is extended, as further Russian incursions may take place without the evidence that monitors can provide? Is the UK acknowledging the special circumstances of the situation in Ukraine and willing to meet additional costs which the OSCE incurs in this vital work?
One of the most powerful weapons against the success of the secessionists will be that Ukraine succeeds in prospering as a modern state, enjoying economic growth with good relations with the West, including through the association agreement with the European Union. Will my noble friend the Minister say whether we have spent the £35 million promised to support political reform? What programmes have been initiated and are ongoing? Do the Government support any of the initiatives of UkraineInvest, proposed by a joint Lithuanian-Ukrainian team some 12 months ago? I understand that they were discussed in various government departments.
In the light of the open aggression by the Russian Federation in the Kerch Strait, the Telegraph reported that the Ministry of Defence was going to deploy troops and a Royal Navy ship to Ukraine. Has that deployment taken place and how many troops are involved? What precisely is their role and what are their terms of engagement? I acknowledge what the UK has done to date but given the importance of supporting Ukraine’s aspirations and ensuring that the Russian Federation’s attempts to destabilise an independent nation are not allowed to succeed, since the UK apparently has its own aspirations to exercise global influence, is it not time for us to have a comprehensive plan to assist Ukraine and not merely react on an ad hoc basis?
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount on his initiative on Ukraine, which regretfully has largely slipped from our headlines because of Brexit. I have three points.
First, however hard Ukraine strives to be a proud, sovereign and independent country, secure within its borders, that yearning is thwarted by the Russian Government. Russia annexed Crimea after a series of lies and salami tactics in 2014 and has since maltreated Crimean Tatars. In May, Russia illegally built a bridge from Crimea to its territory, preventing large vessels reaching Ukraine’s industrial ports on the Sea of Azov. On 25 November Russia fired on and took control of three Ukrainian naval vessels and their crews. It appears Russia is attempting to throttle the economy of Ukraine. In the Donbass, occupied by so-called Russian volunteers, they held fake elections last November.
These actions may be seen in the context of other aggressive acts, such as the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the continued occupation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The West did nothing, and a frozen conflict has emerged. Other actions include Russia’s role in Syria, the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner, the poisoning by GRU agents in Salisbury, cyberwarfare and the attempt to destabilise western democracies by interfering in elections.
How do we respond? Condemnation and calls for restraint are not enough and a military response is clearly out of the question, but Russia must pay a price. Sanctions are in place but are a blunt instrument, although they do have some effect on the Russian economy. Some call for the suspension of work on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, one of whose objects is to bypass Ukraine.
I concede that it is easier to impose sanctions than to withdraw them. There is a serious danger of current sanctions unravelling. I note recent remarks by Salvini, the Deputy Prime Minister of Italy, who in October vowed in Russia to do his best to bring an end to sanctions. The Hungarian Foreign Minister spoke in September to the Russia Today broadcaster against automatically prolonging sanctions. Even Sigmar Gabriel, the Social Democratic former Foreign Minister of Germany, last month suggested lifting economic sanctions if a ceasefire holds in Ukraine. President Trump personally is very wobbly on the issue. In short, there appears little prospect of intensifying sanctions as business interests prevail, particularly if our weight is no longer felt in the EU after Brexit. How seriously do the Government view the danger of giving Putin a victory by withdrawing or reducing sanctions?
Secondly, is there any evidence that Russia is seeking a compromise over Ukraine? Some will argue with great reluctance that, realistically, Ukraine may ultimately have to accept the loss of Crimea and that all we in the West can do is to continue raising human rights concerns. Is there any positive movement in sight over the Donbass, where Russia has no historical claims? Neither side is honouring the February 2015 Minsk 2 accord. Any deal must involve local elections and a degree of local autonomy, with the consequent danger of continued Russian interference. In September 2017, President Putin expressed a willingness in principle to discuss UN involvement in the Donbass. Is this possibility still live, in the Government’s view?
Thirdly, how should we respond to the needs and aspirations of Ukraine? Even if full membership of the EU and NATO is out of the question, surely ways to increase its association should be found. I welcome the range of UK policies in place on strengthening government, including helping to combat corruption, and improving military capabilities. Do the Government envisage increasing resources to Ukraine?
Overall, step by step, Russia is increasing pressure to test the will of the West. It is right that we have given increased assurances to the Baltic states, which feel vulnerable. Our clear message to Russia is: you will pay a price economically and politically for your policies of aggression and destabilisation in Ukraine. Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am no more of a great expert on Ukraine than the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, although I have been there on a number of occasions. Indeed, I recall an extraordinary conference when Ukraine had been independent for three weeks, and I was part of a western delegation to try to explain how an independent state had a foreign policy. I discovered only many years later that my noble friend Lord Oxford and Asquith had also been at the conference in a professional capacity but had not introduced himself to me. I have taken his advice in preparing my thoughts for this debate, and he apologises that he is not able to be here today, as he has to be abroad.
I think that we all understand the Russian strategy towards its neighbours. Russian leaders regard Ukraine in the same way as English Tories used to regard Ireland: it is not a real country and it ought to be governed from Moscow or London. I believe that there might even be some English Conservatives today who hold that view towards Ireland. Some years ago, I deeply upset someone I had worked with in Moscow by making that remark in a Moscow meeting.
Ukraine’s independence is key to our future relationship with Russia. For us, Russia will have to accept that Ukraine is a normal state if it successfully retains its independence. However, Russia’s efforts to disturb all the weaker countries behind it—I know more about Georgia and Armenia, where very similar attitudes are held, than I do about Ukraine—demonstrates that it wants to retain its sphere of influence, and it does that partly by making sure that those countries remain weak, dependent, corrupt and Russian-influenced.
The situation in Ukraine is difficult. I am told that in eastern Ukraine the combination of deep corruption and a failed economy is such that, as Ministers will know, a number of leaders have been assassinated, and the cost to the Russian economy of keeping Donetsk and Luhansk going is high. It does not yet stop the Russians wanting to hold on to it but it is a real drag on Russia. As the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said, in Crimea the persecution of minorities—in particular, the Tatars—is real, and the image of success in Crimea and having the base in Sebastopol, from which Russia hopes to dominate the Black Sea, is important to it, but there are still tremendous negatives from the Russian point of view. In Ukraine, there are still corrupt politics and a weak economy, and we need to do a great deal more to try to help the country stabilise itself both politically and economically.
Our biggest worry in the current situation is the potential for accidental escalation. We have already heard about Russian troops being stationed closer to the borders with Ukraine than they were a year ago. That suggests the possibility of local conflict bursting out into a general conflagration. Of course, in the Sea of Azov further clashes between naval ships and merchant vessels are also possible. Therefore, it is not a stable situation.
What is our response? Clearly, we need western solidarity within NATO and in the EU. The role of the EU has become more important because the role of the United States under President Trump, particularly in policies towards Russia, is much more equivocal. Therefore, for the next three months at least we should work with our EU colleagues. What we do after 29 March is another matter, on which I am sure the Government have a clear strategy and policy. However, let us hope that we will hear from the Minister that the British Government are determined to play an active part. After all, over the last few years the British Government have stepped back on this. In 2014, when the Ukraine crisis broke out over Crimea, the Foreign Office discovered that expertise on both Ukraine and Russia had been run down very badly in previous years and action had to be taken to rebuild it. Earlier than that, the Minsk process had been given to France and Germany, with the British stepping back from that and the associated Normandy process. I hope, therefore, that we will hear from the Minister that the British Government are determined to play an active part in stabilising Ukraine and supporting it in these difficult relationships with Russia.
Mention has been made of a strengthened naval presence in the Black Sea. It is clear that the West—NATO as a whole—ought to have a more visible naval presence in the Black Sea. I would be interested to hear what the British contribution to that might be, what the conversations within NATO are, and about the expanded British assistance to Ukraine—there is useful assistance but clearly it needs to be maintained. Above all—I finish where I started—the independence of Ukraine is key to the future relationship between Europe and Russia.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, I warmly thank the noble Viscount for introducing this debate.
For a number of years I have been chairman of the British Ukrainian Society, so I have been to the country many times. It has had, at times, an extremely difficult history. I will share what recently happened here in London to commemorate one of the most grotesque happenings in European history, the Holodomor—the famine induced by Stalin that caused the deaths of millions of Ukrainians. We had a very moving ceremony outside Westminster Abbey, with hundreds of Ukrainians present. I was delighted that just two weeks ago our Foreign Secretary came to the Palace of Westminster to open a photographic exhibition showing the horrors of the Holodomor and all that it has meant, ingrained as it is in the collective memory of the people of Ukraine. In 1991, Ukraine became independent. The orange revolution drew extraordinary attention to the country, but there were the invasions of the eastern part of Ukraine and Crimea in 2014.
As far as the reality of Crimea is concerned, I had a young Tartar working for me. The fabric of life in Crimea has been utterly turned upside down, with human rights violations on a grand scale and the abolition of the Tartar people’s parliament. In eastern Ukraine, in the Donbass, which has effectively been dominated by Russian and pro-Russian mercenaries, there has been death and destruction, the shooting down of a passenger plane and cyberactivity in disinformation on a massive scale, all costing the Ukrainian economy hugely.
I will read a little note from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly report on human rights, which says,
“governance in rebel-occupied territories continues to disregard human rights and liberties. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights notes ‘cases of summary executions, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment’”,
of individuals and attacks on those following the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. It is appalling.
I will dwell in particular on the recent events in the Sea of Azov, which have happened despite the agreements about that area between Russia and Ukraine. The truth is that the Kerch Bridge linking Russia and Crimea was in practice constructed to impede larger vessels trying to reach the port of Mariupol, a hugely important commercial centre for Ukraine. Preposterously, President Putin accused President Poroshenko of Ukraine of manufacturing these events. Such is the disbelief, it is hard to imagine such nonsense. Russia’s navy intercepted the Ukrainian vessels and arrested the Ukrainian crew, 24 of whom were detained for illegally crossing a so-called maritime border that had been agreed before. Vessels en route to Mariupol today are being deliberately held back, with all the consequences. At the end of August, I was in Odessa. I saw the highly provocative activity of Russian vessels in the Black Sea. I would be grateful to the Minister if he could comment on the current role of Royal Navy vessels that have been operating in the Black Sea.
All this begs the question of how we react. I know that Britain has admirably led the discussions within NATO about putting more troops, beyond advisers, into Romania and Bulgaria. The positioning of British troops in Estonia under the umbrella of NATO acted as a massive source of protection for that country. This is now being considered. I would be grateful to my noble friend if he could comment on this. We agree that if that were done, it may have some effect in sending out a clear message.
As a country, we have been very robust on the sanctions policy, but clearly European countries are divided about to what extent they should be extended further to Russia, given the latest abuses. Nord Stream 2 is a great challenge to the Ukrainian economy.
While Ukraine has introduced laws to increase transparency in public and commercial life, it has not succeeded in banishing corruption and there is still much to do. We have an excellent bilateral relationship with Ukraine. Our support for the country is multi- dimensional. No European country should have to endure the annexation and occupation of its territory and now its seas. Ukraine has not been brought to its knees by such aggression and violent action, and it must never be. It is totally unacceptable.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like other Members speaking today, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and congratulate him on obtaining this debate and speaking so passionately. He got far more into his 10 minutes that we would normally assume you can get into 10 minutes. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Risby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, I am not an expert on Ukraine. I speak on European issues for the Liberal Democrats and, like the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, I have been to Ukraine on only one occasion. That was in 2000 when I was running the European programme at Chatham House, for an event that was funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The aim of the event was to have a trilateral, bringing together representatives from the United Kingdom, Poland and Ukraine. The idea was to strengthen Polish-Ukrainian relations at a time when Poland was aspiring to join the European Union and Ukraine’s relationship with the West was still somewhat in flux—something undecided and perhaps slightly inchoate.
That has been one of the issues facing Ukraine that so many other countries emerging after the Cold War did not face. For countries in central and eastern Europe, there was a clear direction. They were looking west and to join all the western institutions: the EU, NATO and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, mentioned, the OSCE. Ukraine was always caught somewhere between east and west. I have not visited Kiev. I went to Lviv, where politicians were looking to the West and its institutions, whereas the view in Kiev always looked much more to the east. Ukraine as a country was, and in many ways remains, divided. Its European destiny was not clear.
For many years, the European Commission viewed its enlargement policy as its most effective tool of foreign policy. It felt that by offering membership to a set of countries in central and eastern Europe, it could effect change and cause states that were perhaps uncertain about their future to commit to stable liberal democracy, economic reform, human rights and the rule of law. They would move on from corruption by ensuring they had non-corrupt politicians and a non-corrupt judiciary. In 2018, one might question how effective the European Commission has been in moving states such as Poland and Hungary to liberal democracy, but at the time there was a clear sense that many states were moving westwards.
However, when from time to time Ukraine looked west and thought about EU membership, the response to it from Joschka Fischer, then German Foreign Minister, was that perhaps the EU needed to think about another sort of relationship for Ukraine and, in brackets, Turkey. It would be not membership but some associate status, because they should never think of themselves as potential members of the European Union. At one level, Joschka Fischer’s thinking in 2000 might have been far-sighted. When NATO began to think about expansion a few years ago we saw that the Russian reaction was, “Why is NATO looking into our backyard?” Joschka Fischer managed to create a situation in which Ukraine was told, “You’re never going to be a European Union member state, even if you want to be”. In many ways there was a dialogue of the deaf, and Ukraine never reformed in the way that central European countries which joined the European Union in 2004 and 2007 were able to. Ukraine has therefore been unable to move on. The domestic situation of economic and political difficulty, so eloquently outlined by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has not changed as it was able to in western Europe. Ukraine has not had the support of the European Union or NATO in the way that other countries might have expected. It has remained vulnerable to Russia, and in many ways we have not found collective solutions to deal with the Ukrainian border.
Like other noble Lords, I ask the Minister what role he envisages for the United Kingdom post Brexit—assuming that we are leaving—in supporting Ukraine but also to keep it talking with the EU 27. This would ensure that our responses are not just individual British but collective European ones. Britain might have a role to play in assisting Ukraine, but collectively we can do so much more.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I, too, thank the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for initiating this highly topical debate. I fear that either my speech or the Minister’s speech will be interrupted by a Division, but I shall plough ahead.
As the noble Lord, Lord Risby, reminded us, we must not forget that 10,000 people have died in the Ukraine conflict in recent times, and as my noble friend Lord Anderson mentioned, we must also remember that Ukraine has been seeking action from the international community on the Sea of Azov since 2014. The issue is not a new one; it has been festering and, as we have heard, Ukraine’s economy is being strangled by the blockade. I hope that the Minister will respond to the question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and will explain what steps the United Kingdom is taking to assist Ukraine and its economy in overcoming the blockade.
The opening of the Kerch Bridge was a flagrant violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, and the search and seizure of Ukrainian vessels in the Sea of Azov is a flagrant breach of international law but, as the noble Lord, Lord Risby, also said, the recent seizures are not isolated incidents. Since May 2018, Russia has conducted more than 200 stop-and-search boarding operations of civilian vessels transiting to or from the Ukrainian industrial ports of Mariupol and Berdyansk. These latest incidents show once again the urgency of coming to a decision on whether we can achieve a viable UN peacekeeping mission that could be launched to protect the Minsk agreements and provide a lasting resolution to this conflict. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, there has to be concern about an accidental escalation, and we need both sides to show restraint and to de-escalate, adhering to international law, with Russia allowing unhindered access to Ukraine’s ports on the Sea of Azov.
The Ukrainian Government’s imposition of martial law has been presented as a limited move, both in duration and location, and I welcome the Ukrainian President’s announcement that elections on 31 March will be unaffected. However, does the Minister share my opinion that this initial response must not be a precursor to a wider and longer-lasting extension of martial law?
As the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said, we have been giving support to Ukraine. In his response to the recent Urgent Question, Alistair Burt said that the UK is providing some £30 million a year to Ukraine to support a range of areas, including governance reform, accountability, communications and human rights. We are also providing £14 million in relation to conflict, security and stability projects, as mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, to bolster Ukrainian defence reform. We have provided up to £3 million of new funding this year for developing independent media and countering Russian disinformation, alongside the £2 million already provided through existing projects. As the noble Viscount and others have said, endemic corruption affects institutions at local and state level. The national anti-corruption bureau’s effectiveness is hindered by the unreliability and bias of the courts. What assessment have the Government made of their support so far, and have recent incidents made them step up their consideration of bolstering further developing democratic practices and the rule of law? Will we provide further support?
Noble Lords have also mentioned the dynamics of United States policy. President Trump’s initial reaction to the seizure of the Ukrainian vessels was to return to the theme that US commitment to NATO operations was somehow conditional on NATO countries increasing their financial contributions. Will the Minister update us on the talks that the Defence Secretary had with his US counterpart after his visit to Ukraine last month?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for initiating this timely debate. I also thank all noble Lords for their insightful and expert contributions.
I am sure we all agree that the starting point for our consideration of Ukraine is our unwavering support for its sovereignty, a point made by all noble Lords. Let me assure the Committee that we stand strongly with Ukraine on its independence and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders. Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea was a grave violation of international law and, as we all know, Russian-backed separatists continue to wage a conflict in eastern Ukraine that has claimed more than 10,000 lives and injured a further 25,000 people. According to the United Nations, that conflict has displaced around 1.5 million Ukrainians.
The toll in human suffering is enormous, which is why the UK is delivering £8.7 million of humanitarian aid to the most vulnerable people affected by the conflict. More than 2.3 million people are in need of assistance within government-controlled and non-government-controlled areas of eastern Ukraine. DfID is providing direct assistance through grants and other training, to ensure that economic opportunities can be leveraged fully in the interests of the citizens of Ukraine. We are also providing indirect assistance as the largest contributor within the international community to the Red Cross appeal for Ukraine.
Several noble Lords raised the issue of working together with Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke from his great insight on this, as did my noble friend Lord Risby and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I draw the Committee’s attention to the Statement made by the Prime Minister today on the European Council. She said that during the Council’s discussions:
“First, we expressed our utmost concern over the escalation we have seen at the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov, and over Russia’s continued violations of international law. We agreed to roll over economic sanctions against Russia, and we stand ready further to strengthen our support, in particular for the affected areas of Ukraine. Secondly, we … agreed to work together on tackling the spread of deliberate, large-scale and systematic disinformation”—
my noble friend Lord Risby mentioned that—
“including as part of hybrid warfare”.
Let me therefore again assure noble Lords that, not just through our membership of the European Union, when it comes to sanctions and collaboration on common areas of interest—
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the latest wave of Russian aggression and provocation against Ukraine, which many noble Lords mentioned, saw Ukrainian vessels and their crew fired on, rammed and forcibly seized as they sought to enter the Sea of Azov on 25 November. This was the first time the Russian military had avowedly fired on Ukrainian forces. It underscored Russia’s willingness to escalate tensions in and around the Black Sea with no regard for its obligations under UNCLOS or Ukraine’s rights under the 2003 bilateral agreement with Russia.
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary condemned in the strongest terms Russia’s actions, which were also met with a robust chorus of disapproval through the UN Security Council, NATO, the EU—as the Prime Minister said in her Statement—and the OSCE. The G7 also came together to issue a statement calling out Russia for its action against the Ukrainian vessels and crewmen.
The noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Wallace, and my noble friends Lord Bowness and Lord Risby, among others, raised the issue of the Black Sea naval incident. We remain deeply concerned about the welfare of detained Ukrainian soldiers. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to Foreign Minister Klimkin on 29 November and reaffirmed the UK’s solidarity and support. I can confirm that the Ministry of Defence is stepping up military assistance to Ukraine through the Operation ORBITAL training mission. My right honourable friend the Defence Secretary will visit Ukraine in the near future. As he has already announced, we are also deploying HMS “Echo” to the Black Sea. The date of that deployment will be announced shortly.
Responsibility lies with Russia to de-escalate the situation by releasing the 24 Ukrainian servicemen and three vessels it has detained and by respecting free passage for all vessels through the Kerch Strait. We are discussing concrete measures, including sanctions, with our international partners, so that we can collectively demonstrate to the Russian regime that its illegal actions will have a cost. The European Council last week also made clear that the EU stands by its measures to strengthen its support for Ukraine.
My noble friend Lord Risby and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, also asked about Nord Stream 2. We do not believe Nord Stream 2 is necessary and are concerned that its construction is harmful to European interests and to Ukraine. British officials regularly discuss this with the German Government and other stakeholders, including to highlight UK concerns at the impact of the project on gas transit through Ukraine. We continue to support initiatives that strengthen and diversify European gas supply.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, rightly raised the issue of martial law, and I agree with him. Concerns have been expressed about the decision by President Poroshenko to implement martial law following the Black Sea incident. We must all remember which country has created this crisis. Russia has put extreme pressure on Ukraine, not only forcibly violating its sovereignty but subjecting its people to attacks—including cyberattacks, as my noble friend Lord Risby stated. I assure the Committee that we continue to work with the Ukrainian Government and while martial law is now being implemented across the country, we have been reassured that its application has been time-limited to 30 days. We also welcome the President’s assurances that martial law will not affect presidential and parliamentary elections planned for next year, which was a question the noble Lord raised.
The sad reality is that incidents such as the confrontation in the Black Sea demonstrate how Russia continues to work to undermine Ukraine’s stability rather than to support it. It is important that the international community continues to work together with resolve and unity in its purpose, and we must call out these flagrant violations of international rules and norms. That is precisely what Her Majesty’s Government are doing. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, raised the Minsk agreements and asked how long it will be before the Government look at alternatives and whether Russia and Ukraine should resolve matters bilaterally. Our view is that the Minsk process is not making progress because Russia has shown no interest in de-escalation with or without a clear road map. As the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Wallace, said, the only viable path towards peace is for all parties to meet their obligations under the agreement and work urgently to achieve a full and sustained ceasefire across the line of contact. Ukraine took a difficult political step in October to renew the law on special status for the Donbass, as required by the Minsk agreements. In contrast, Russia continues to frustrate the process, including by supporting illegitimate elections on 11 November which undermine the agreements.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, raised sanctions linked to Russian transgressions. They are one of the clearest signals that the international community can send to Russia to change course. I assure the noble Lord that that is why we have been clear to Russia that sanctions relief can come only when the Minsk agreements are fully implemented. Until then, the sanctions imposed in response to Russia’s actions remain in place. We have no indication that Russia is serious about UN involvement in the Donbass. Russia has not engaged further on the suggestion of UN peacekeepers. Indeed, as I said, its recent action supporting illegitimate elections in the Donbass in November was a serious violation.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Is there a prospect of the sanctions being intensified or will they inevitably unravel when they come to a potential rollover?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, at the start of my contribution I mentioned the Statement that the Prime Minister made that the sanctions would be rolled over and strengthened, particularly with the continued collaboration of our European partners.
Several questions were asked about UK assistance and I will seek to cover some of them in the time that remains. I assure noble Lords that more progress has been made in the past four years than in the previous 23 years combined, notably in reforming the energy and banking sectors. Crucially, progress has been achieved in tackling corruption through the procurement of electronic systems, building anti-corruption institutions and launching an electronic income declaration system for officials. The UK Government hosted the Ukraine reform conference in July 2017. Indeed, it was one of my first acts when I joined the Foreign Office. I recall visiting Ukraine in 2014 as a Communities and Local Government Minister to help it on local governance methods.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the impact on the economy of east Ukraine. The consequences of recent Russian actions have been quite severe, particularly on trade through the Kerch Strait. Cities situated on the Sea of Azov have seen the economic throughput in their ports reduced in the past nine months, Mariupol by 43% and Berdyansk by 30%.
My noble friend Lord Bowness, among others, raised the £35 million of UK assistance to Ukraine. This continues, including £8.7 million in DfID humanitarian funding and £40 million through the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, acknowledged. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that our wide-ranging programmes include technical assistance and have had a positive impact on the business climate. Headline achievements include the establishment of an intellectual property rights court, more professional management of public finances and support for small and medium-sized enterprises, a point I know will resonate with all noble Lords. I will highlight two projects that have made a real difference to people in the conflict-affected communities: a mine clearance project, and our support for valuable work to raise awareness and improve the response to sexual and gender-based violence in Ukraine.
My noble friend Lord Bowness also asked about the role of the OSCE special monitoring mission. The UK makes one of the largest personnel contributions to the mission, and I assure him that we will continue to support the continuation of its vital mission in discussions at the OSCE. My noble friend Lord Risby asked about sending NATO troops to Romania and Bulgaria. In the interests of time, I will write to him on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised the issue of stepping back from the Normandy process. France and Germany are of course leading this process, as he knows, but I assure him that we continue to support their efforts to make progress on the Minsk agreements.
In conclusion, in terms of souls lost and lives fractured, potential thwarted and hope dimmed, Ukraine continues to pay a heavy price for daring to exercise its sovereign rights to look to the West. The Ukrainian people are suffering an illegal, immoral and unjust punishment meted out by a neighbour that uses external force to mask geopolitical and economic insecurities, and to unite its own population. Russia’s illegal and aggressive strategy not only threatens Ukraine but is a clear challenge to the rules-based international system and to the will of the international community. In thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for initiating this debate, I assure all noble Lords that the UK Government remain committed and will continue to work collaboratively and collectively to ensure that the resolve of the international community remains undiminished, and that we will continue to work bilaterally with the Ukrainian Government for a better future for all Ukrainians.
Viscount Waverley
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he think it worthy of note to agree that it could take up to 10 years to clear the mines in eastern Ukraine—which should give some indication of the true gravity of the situation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I have noted the noble Viscount’s comment, but the mine clearance project is one of the successes that we have seen through the investments made.
Religious Education
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alderdice
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Commission on Religious Education Religion and Worldviews: the way forward, published in September; and whether they intend to publish any response.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, during much of 2016 and 2017, I spent time conducting a review for my colleagues in the Liberal Democrats on the challenge of the inclusion of racial and ethnic minorities in politics and, indeed, in the party. One thing that became very clear to me was that it was a problem of culture much more than of regulations or institutional arrangements. In other words, when people came to the UK from other places with other sets of views, there was a challenge for them as they became part of this community but also for the community to engage and involve people with other perspectives.
During that work, I was helped by one of my colleagues, Kishan Devani, who pointed out to me that an important piece of work was ongoing on religion and worldviews. When that was launched here in Parliament on 12 September, I went along to hear what was being said. I then read the report, and I was struck by how the fundamental principles behind that report were exactly what I had had to work on in my report for the Liberal Democrats.
The report is a thoughtful piece of work. In fact, arguably, it is the most substantial piece of work on the issue of religious education in our country since the 1970s. There was of course legislation in the 1980s, but that came from the process of digesting work done in the previous decade. I think that much the same will happen with this report because it addresses some fundamentally important issues. If it has a problem in how it presents itself, it is that goes into such detail that it is not difficult to find specific things that people might disagree with because it has been exhaustive in producing a set of propositions.
I should like to draw back from that and look at the fundamental principles behind the report and its intentions because they are of enormous importance. When I tabled this Question for Short Debate, the Government had not responded. The Secretary of State, Damian Hinds, responded last week. Sadly, it is a very negative and disappointing response because in many ways it fails to take up some of the most important issues identified in the report.
First, let me say a bit about what it seems to me that the report addresses. If we think about the question of what religious education is about, it is not the old view of religious instruction. We have clearly got beyond the point—this has been legally established by the courts—where it is simply education in one religious perspective. In our country, it is absolutely clear that we must take a wider perspective into consideration.
A man who is rather a hero of mine, an Irish theologian, dead many years ago, described religion in the following way. He said that religion is the most ultimate, real and compelling form in which we can see the social or universal relationships and obligations of our lives. In the case of those who may be called non-religious, it is necessary only to invert the form of the sentence: the most ultimate, real and compelling form in which they can see their social or universal relationships and obligations is their true religion.
In other words, religion is about how we understand and engage with meaning and that which transcends any particular subject or element of our lives, nation or state. It is how we understand our whole way of being in the world. That does not depend on being a member of any particular religious family. What is crucial in education is the drawing together, the giving to young people of opportunity, encouragement and education to understand meaning, purpose and their engagement with the universe in which we live.
To deny that to young people, not to provide it adequately to them, is to leave them with an education which is a little bit of this, little bit of that and a little bit of another thing without any sense that it can be drawn together in a meaningful way. Whether that is in something that we would traditionally have regarded as religion or what we would regard as a non-religious viewpoint, it is, nevertheless, one that helps young people to develop a worldview, a way of thinking about and engaging with the world. It is not just something that they think about but their whole way of being in the world that they have. When the Minister responds by saying that it is about their getting knowledge of the values and traditions of Britain and other countries and therefore fostering mutual respect and tolerance, that is, for me, the expression of a generation for whom religious education was a failure, so that at the highest levels of the country, people fundamentally do not understand what religion is about and its role in the human condition.
That is not surprising, because we now find that in 2016 a large percentage of schools—33%—offered no RE at all at key stage 4, up from 22% the year before. Those schools are in breach of the law, yet the Government seem to show no interest or concern about it. Why should it be that in what is a law-abiding country, teachers—those who set down the boundaries, rules and ways of understanding and behaving for our children—should be so happy, at the level of the individual teacher, the school or the board of governors, to disregard what is absolutely clear in the law?
The answer is because they do not believe in it. It is not because there is not enough money, so when the Minister says, “We will put in a bit of money this way and that way”, it does not address the fundamental problem. The problem is that people do not say, “I believe that. That is important to me. I want to convey this sense of understanding to the next generation”. Why is that? I think it is because many people have gone beyond the traditional religious ways of looking at things, not to have no worldview but to have a different perspective with which many of the organised structures of religion have not kept up.
That is not a reason to dismiss religious education, throw it aside, allow it to fall into disrepair or disuse or to deny our children the encouragement to understand the way that, historically and in different parts of the world, we have struggled to understand what our life, our lives and society are about. It is not to deny that chance to say, “Here are a whole lot of ways people have tried to do it and it is really important that you study it so that you understand that where history, geography, physics and maths all fit together into some kind of perspective that has meaning for us and helps to guide us when we begin to make important decisions, personally and socially in our lives”. When we come to the ministerial response, there is no sense of that at all. It is, “We’ll put a little bit more money into it”, “Actually we do not have time”, or “What I really need to do is to reduce the workload of overburdened teachers”.
We should be asking why people have lost a sense of passion about this. Teachers do not go into the profession to make a load of money or for an easy life. They go into it because they have a passionate belief in conveying to the next generation those things which are important to them and our wider community.
When it comes to the idea that religion is about conveying the culture of our country, the whole point of the Christian faith that I hold is that it is not nationalistic, it goes beyond that and says, “No, it is not just about this country”. My goodness, the person at the beginning of it was nothing to do with this country and was pretty sceptical about the nationalism of his own. To say such things tells me that there is a failure of religious education not just in this generation but for the past two or three generations—a failure which means that people at the highest level do not really understand what it is about.
Why is that important? It is because when we deal with other people in other places or with people in our society for whom this is very important, leading, thoughtful, decision-making people do not understand what they are dealing with. They make the wrong decisions when it comes to dealing with fundamentalism, terrorism and the politics of other countries, because, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said in a debate on Friday, a majority of people in this country may not have religious perspectives, but if you look globally, it is quite the opposite and is a growing phenomenon in the world. We must therefore understand that we must take it seriously.
We have just come from voting in a Division—successfully, I understand, for those of us who voted for the amendment—about our concern about the way that the Government are handling relations with the Muslim community. Parliament is sufficiently concerned about that to ask for a review of Prevent. That is because there is not proper and sufficient understanding. When it comes to young people and their mental health, it is not about them being religious, it is about them being encouraged to have a coherent view of what makes meaning in their lives.
The report gives an opportunity not for the Government to say yes or no about legislation but, rather, to say, “This is a really worthwhile attempt to address the question. We will sit down and discuss with you your concerns and ours about how we make it better for the next generation”, not, “I am sorry, we are too busy, we do not have the time, we do not want to overburden teachers. Here is a little bit of money. Please go away”. It is far too important for that. If the Government do not deal with it and instead pay attention to a small number of stakeholders, some of whom are fundamentalist in their known perspectives, I guarantee the Minister, the department and the Government that this issue will not go away and those who are determined to promote it will not go away. There will be a substantial campaign by people who say, “These are important issues for our generation and the next, and we will continue to press them”.
I hope that the Minister will take that message back to his colleagues, particularly the Secretary of State. This is important and it is not going to go away.
Lord Stone of Blackheath (Lab)
My Lords, the experience and wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in this matter is immense and inspiring, and I thank him.
I am pleased that this report recommends that children should experience and learn to link the spiritual and the secular and be helped to broaden their world view. My secular schooling, in Cardiff, was traumatic and upsetting. I was asked to leave school at the age of 16 thinking that I was stupid. My Jewish evening classes, which I attended after school, were so narrow and strict, concentrating on ritual and practice, that I was made to think that I could not be spiritual.
Later, with help, I found first that I was not stupid but dyslexic, and that the different brain structure can sometimes be an advantage, particularly in retailing and entrepreneurialism. Secondly, I was helped to know that I have within me “spirit”, as we all do. I will mention five experts who are rectifying this lack of compassion and mutual respect between the secular and the spiritual in education and who demonstrate it with evidence-based practices and methodologies.
The consultant paediatrician Sebastian Yuen has helped to create a system of teaching called Genius School. It has been tested in places as variable as Ecuador, Las Vegas, Indonesia, Thailand and New Zealand, and he is now bringing it to British schools. It helps children to develop insights and skills needed for their future on this planet. It begins with a personality-type assessment so that children learn their strengths as well as their weaknesses. Next, they are helped to find their passion and purpose, aligned with the UN sustainable development goals, and then they are introduced to skills to help them to start and complete projects. Finally, there is an introduction to experiences that help them develop resilience through mind/body activities such as music and movement, mindfulness, meditation and yoga.
Then there is Rabbi David Geffen, who saw that teachers were not trained to introduce into their schools concepts of compassion, empathy, equality, respect and love, and he has created a wonderful system of training teachers to teach these values. I have placed a copy of his practical illustrated book, Loving Classroom, in the Library. He says, as suggested in this report, that genuine universal religious education is the study of unity and oneness. Loving Classroom is now used in schools with Jewish, Muslim, Christian and secular curriculums in Israel, South Africa and the UK.
People might not know that in Judaism the written word for God, which cannot be spoken, consists of four letters, which, if pronounced, could sound like “jeho” and “vah”. I must not say it all together—it must not be pronounced. It is referred to in prayer only as “the Lord” or “the Name”. In fact, it is not a word; it is the root of the verb “to be”. The past, present and future tenses of “to be” are was, is and will be. This is the energy that unites, permeates and gives life to all beings for all time. Moses, as depicted in this room, said exactly that when he came down from the mountain. Without this oneness, we each have an evolutionary survival image of ourselves which creates the illusion that we are all completely separate and in competition with each other. “Spirit”, as found in all religions, is an energy that moves humanity to work together to experience the unity of existence and thereby resonate with universal oneness. In secular mindfulness practice, this is also the ultimate pleasure of higher consciousness—a journey built on cultivating truth in one’s head, peace in one’s heart and justice in one’s hands. If children of all faiths and none were helped to experience this, it would help them to progress in whatever activity they find themselves undertaking in life.
I am also delighted that Jeffrey Leader, director of Pikuach, the government-accredited inspection service for Jewish schools, is set on ensuring that all Jewish schools in this country, whatever their strand of Judaism, teach not just the confining rules and regulations, history and scriptures but, as Rabbi Geffen suggests, the values of unity, spirituality and oneness that it advocates.
David Lorimer, programme director of the Scientific and Medical Network, is a founder of a programme in schools in Scotland called Inspiring Purpose. Its aim and vision is to give young people the opportunity to think about their values, character and strengths, while also reflecting on who or what inspires them and their aspirations and goals for the future. Its mission is to help young people set goals, demonstrate future-mindedness and develop a sense of purpose. It aims to help these young minds of the future find opportunities and causes that they care about, and to get young people to become involved with and take action on issues that matter to them.
Finally, I mention Dadi Janki, the spiritual leader of the Brahma Kumaris, based on Mount Abu in Rajasthan, who, 20 years ago, when I was in my 50s and she was in her 80s—she is now 103—began showing me, through her love and compassion, that I, like everyone else, had spirit within me. When we act from that connection, it is good for each of us and for all of us. The vision that Dadi shares has inspired values-based educational programmes around the world in schools, with young leaders, and in the Brahma Kumaris institution.
I ask the Minister to engage with the experts I have mentioned—they all have evidence bases for their methodologies—to see how they might be involved with the plans for implementing the recommendations of this report to create a system to teach not only heads, but hearts and hands.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, political elites frequently wring their hands and complain that all our problems would be solved if only religious adherents shared their own world view that God does not exist and nor should religions. GK Chesterton mocked this, remarking:
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything”.
Notwithstanding the crimes perpetrated in the name of religion, the Committee should remember that the great mass murderers of the 20th century—Hitler, Stalin and Mao—were united in their world view in hating and persecuting religion and, according to Rudolph Rummel, were responsible for at least 100 million deaths.
Unpalatable as it may be to some, around 84% of the world’s population has religious beliefs. There are 2.4 billion Christians, around 30% of the global population, and as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, told us earlier, that number has been increasing. Lyse Doucet, the BBC’s courageous foreign affairs correspondent, was right to say that if you want to understand the world you have to understand religion. The ultimate paradox would be to counter a decline in religious literacy by teaching less religion. RE is not about enforcing a belief in God: it is about respecting and taking seriously those who do. This cannot be elided into social sciences, reduced to a purely human or theoretical phenomenon, or a methodologically agnostic, neutral approach to religion.
Lesslie Newbigin described Christian faith as public truth, confident that its message is true—based on evidence—and offering hope to humanity. As well as understanding religious faith as transcendent belief by which millions of people live, it is also about understanding religion as a human right, as defined by Article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights: the right to believe, not to believe, or to change your belief.
Religious literacy and understanding of faith and no faith, the honouring of difference, the determination to understand one another and to reconsider bigotry, prejudice and caricatures, must surely be at the heart of how we form tomorrow’s citizens. This will not be achieved by forcing the dilution of religious education—quite the reverse. Damian Hinds, was, therefore, right to tell the admirable chair of the commission, Dr John Hall, that he had heard “concerns” that making statutory the inclusion of world views risked diluting the teaching of RE. The future flourishing of RE will best be achieved by strengthening and adequately resourcing the existing legal arrangements for the Agreed Syllabus Conference, and by supporting the Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education.
As an instinctive opponent of one-size-fits-all, centralised command and control, I much prefer the use of a syllabus agreed locally between faith communities, teachers and local authorities. This is about ensuring that children will be taught religious knowledge in terms of how religions understand themselves, not as how the non-religious would wish them to understand themselves. The report’s proposed abolition of the LAS would mean that the guaranteed contribution to and ownership of local RE by local faith leaders would end. A place at the table, with proper accountability, is a far better approach than telling faith communities that they are no longer welcome. For many, religion is not just about learning a subject, it is about a framework by which to live. Excluding faith communities from the proposed new national body, and with no requirement for the new overseers to be conversant with particular religions or faith communities, is quite unacceptable, and could be deeply divisive.
Government could, however, iron out some glaring inconsistencies by ensuring, for instance, that the legal obligations set out in the 1988 Education Act are actually met—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice.
While recognising the important contribution that faith makes to our shared values, we disincentivise the teaching of high-quality RE by not including it in the English Baccalaureate. I am sorry the department has no plans to review this, but I at least hope to hear more positive news about the provision of extra teacher training.
Here are three responses to the report that we should hear this evening with some concern. The Board of Deputies of British Jews calls it “fundamentally flawed”, saying that it,
“might be seen as an attempt by those hostile to faith to push their agenda of undermining rigour in religious education at a time when faith literacy could not be more important”.
The Board of Deputies says that recommendations 1 to 4 are profoundly contentious and dismantle an important part of the Church-state settlement from 1944, 1988 and 1996.
The Catholic Education Service agrees and argues that the quality of religious education is not enhanced or improved by teaching less religion. It says,
“the scope of the subject”,
will become “so wide” and potentially “nondescript” that it would,
“lose all academic value and integrity”,
and potentially depress religious literacy and understanding at a time when persecution of religious freedom has increased globally.
The Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education also expresses disappointment. It says,
“the report paints an overwhelmingly negative picture of the current state of RE”.
It insists that RE in the UK is,
“the envy of the rest of Europe, if not the world”,
and suggests some very good ways of improving even further the teaching of RE, which I have sent to the Minister.
In his letter to Dr Hall, the Secretary of State, Damian Hinds, says:
“I have … concluded that now is not the time to begin these reforms”.
I agree with him, but I also hope he will come forward with positive proposals for strengthening the existing framework.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for securing this debate and for placing our understanding of how to be in the world as the foundation for this report, Religion and Worldviews: the way forward. A national plan for RE. The report has been widely welcomed by many who are committed to the best possible teaching of RE, including the Church of England’s education office. We are grateful to the very reverend John Hall for leading the commission that has produced the report.
There may be many causes for the decline in the delivery of good-quality teaching in RE, but one of them will undoubtedly be the exclusion of the subject from the EBacc and a consequent decline in the number of qualified RE teachers in schools. This might well be an unintended consequence, but it is worth noting that for the same reason there is also a serious concern about the lack of music teachers and teaching posts. The EBacc is seen as a disincentive. On both subjects, I believe that the quality of the education we give to pupils in our state-funded schools is seriously diminished. I join others in welcoming the recent comments by Ofsted Chief Inspector Amanda Spielman, who in a recent speech at the SCHOOLS NorthEast summit in Newcastle, asserted the importance of quality education in the broadest terms,
“encouraging the take-up of core EBacc subjects such as the humanities and languages at GCSE, alongside the arts and creative subjects”.
I hope the Minister presses the point with Ofsted so that a school could not be judged outstanding if it were not able to demonstrate excellence in religion and worldviews—RE, if you wish to call it that—and the arts, especially music.
It is the Church of England’s hope that this CRE report will contribute to a significant improvement in the delivery of an education in which the skills of religious literacy are a natural and valued element. The urgent need for this has been well stated by the Religious Education Council of England and Wales’s chief executive, Rudolf Eliott Lockhart, when he observes:
“More than ever, as our society becomes multicultural and religious extremism dominates the news agenda, we need young people to be religiously literate”.
In the 11 recommendations of the report, the language of national entitlement underlines the seriousness of the matter. I believe this is something that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has also touched on as a right. The entitlement is outlined in pages 12 and 13 of the report. The recruitment and training of teachers in this subject is a vital element in the delivery of excellence in this important area. The call for teachers of secure subject knowledge and for promoting the value of scholarship is greatly welcome.
In today’s pluralist society, we need teachers who will challenge cultural and religious stereotypes from a position of understanding and respect. In the case of religions that have an inherited and shared cultic practice, an identifiable canon of foundational texts and an organised pattern of leadership, it will be important to ensure that secure subject knowledge also includes the ability to explore a faith system’s world view through the practices that define and sustain it. In this respect, I hope that any national body that is responsible for developing coherent programmes of study would be required to consult religious and cultural organisations, particularly those whose practice, texts and organisation are the material for study in our schools.
Finally, recommendation 11 opens some serious questions about the withdrawal of pupils from this vital area of education. What plans does the Department for Education have to provide additional legal advice to governors and teachers about what should constitute legitimate grounds for the right to withdraw a pupil from the best that can be offered in the study of religion and world views? How will the Department for Education protect teachers from complaint and prosecution on the basis of ideological or racist views about this subject?
The Secretary of State has stated in his response to the report that his priority is to provide stability to schools, yet I fear that without action to support and incentivise the teaching of humanities, arts and RE by well-trained teachers the inevitable outcome will be not stability but narrowness and decline.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this report because it seems right that our approach should be that of a Weltanschauung. I speak as a humanist and atheist. I do not believe in divine revelation or miracles such as the resurrection, but religion plays an important part in our society—often for good, although not always. It is important that we should know about the historic contribution that Christianity has made to our history and culture in Britain, and about the important role of Islam in the Middle East and Asia and, indeed, in today’s Europe. I wish I had learned more about Islam and other religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, at school.
I went to a Church of England boarding school. Its approach was not a million miles away from that recommended in this report. Every day started with chapel, but actually chapel was not a very religious experience. We wondered which boy—there were no girls then—would read the lesson, commented on how well or badly it was read, hoped there was a good stirring hymn and took bets on the length of the sermons on Sundays. Generally speaking, religion was not thrust down our throats at school. Indeed some masters positively encouraged independent, and even dissident, views about politics as well as religion, but that is not true of many faith schools.
Teaching should teach us about beliefs—to understand them and be tolerant towards other beliefs, when they too preach tolerance—but in my view schools should not teach beliefs. They should teach children to think and question and if that leads them to adopt a religion or confirm their parents’ religious views, as they mostly do, that is well and good. But it should not treat children as Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Jewish any more than we would treat them as Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat children. That would narrow their Weltanschauung. Children should have a chance to choose their beliefs for themselves. Religion should be taught in the context of science.
One of the great moments of history and civilisation, as Isaiah Berlin observed, was the Enlightenment. It dethroned authority, especially theocracy, as the arbiter of truth. Evidence, not dogma, was now the test for truth in the natural world. It undermined superstition, prejudice and autocracy because it taught that there was uncertainty and doubt. Some truths about nature are now established as facts, no longer as heavenly portents. Evolution, for example, is overwhelmingly supported by evidence and can be regarded as a fact—except in the United States—as is the fact that night follows day and the earth is round. But however well-established they are today, some theories about how evolution evolves—for example, Darwin’s theory of natural selection—may one day, like all theories, be succeeded by a better one. There are always uncertainties.
Pope wrote:
“Nature, and Nature’s laws lay hid in night.
God said, Let Newton be! And all was light”,
to which one later wit added:
“It did not last: the Devil howling ‘Ho!
Let Einstein be!’ restored the status quo”.
There is always some room for doubt, and science is not to be confused with scientism—as science’s opponents often do—which believes that science has an answer for everything. Of course it does not. Scientism has no room for doubt and was one of the flaws in certain aspects of Marxism, which certainly allowed no doubt.
It may be unrealistic to suggest that teaching about the Enlightenment should be part of the curriculum in all schools, but the new Weltanschauung should place religion in a wider context to avoid dogma. Perhaps one key quotation should be Locke’s plea for tolerance, which I regard as basic to the defeat of autocracy and the promotion of democracy:
“For where is the man who has incontestable evidence of the truth of all that he holds, or of the falsehood of all he condemns; or who can say that he has examined to the bottom all his own, or other men’s opinions?”
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, this is a splendid report, and the Government’s response is feeble. The report commands our admiration for its range and thoroughness. It took two years and heard a lot of submissions. It is extremely good: broad-based, understanding and tolerant. The Secretary of State said that religious education is useful because it teaches respect and tolerance. Religion is far more important than that. It is a global crisis. It is the basis of many of our wars and the cause of a great deal of persecution, as the churchmen here will know.
We need to enlighten children about the nature of thinking, purpose and their world view. For 10 years, I did a BBC programme called “Belief”, in which I interviewed a variety of people: everyone from Richard Dawkins to Timothy Radcliffe, who was the leader of the Dominicans. There were Sikhs, Baha’is, Zoroastrians, atheists—all sorts of people, and every one had a world view. As a humanist, my view is that every individual holds within him a world view and a sense of morality. Unless we bring that out in children, the world is doomed.
I went to Northern Ireland to report on children’s religious education. I talked to Catholic children, who said that the Protestants were wrong and should be killed, and I talked to Protestant children, who said that the Catholics were wrong. I talked at a school which was attempting to bring them together, and the children were saying, “I’ve got a friend who’s a Catholic, and she’s perfectly all right!”. They surprised each other by the breadth of their understanding.
I believe that this report needs more attention and acknowledgement, and that it can be an important gesture towards the future peace and enlightenment of the world. Do not go to Pakistan if you are a Christian—you will be persecuted. Do not go to Saudi Arabia if you want to celebrate Christmas. There are countries across the world which persecute people for holding a world view that differs from their own. We need to eradicate that intolerance, and that applies to every one of us and to every religious and non-belief enterprise—I speak as a humanist.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is a very interesting report. As I started to go through it, I was very impressed by how it designs a method for improving the training of teachers and broadening the information they have.
To start with the practicalities—I will come to my philosophical point in a moment—the report has the right approach: make sure that the people who teach the subject have a good understanding of it; otherwise, you will be trying to push water uphill from a very early point. The fact that we have got into a system where we do not take this subject seriously is probably at the heart of it—it has lost status. The noble Lord will be familiar with the criticism of EBacc. It has downgraded many subjects and religious education has merely joined a list. I am normally in a room supported by people who talk about the creative subjects—things that we make money on. Avoiding conflict and stress in society might be a very good way of saving money but we actually make money from them. However, those subjects are downgraded by the EBacc. The road to hell is undoubtedly paved with good intentions, and, trust me, you are on the road to purgatory when you insist on downgrading useful subjects. I am afraid that the EBacc misses the mark.
I turn to the philosophical point. It is probably presumptuous for a dyslexic—I join the noble Lord, Lord Stone, in the mafia of the mis-spellers; we would take over the world but we forget exactly who we are and where we jotted it down—to point out that the “s” on the end of the term “world views” is where this report scores. The first step towards a more civil and co-operative society is knowing what other people think and how they think. It is deciding that another person is well intentioned or it is thinking that they are wrong most of the time as opposed to evil, whether because of religion, politics or anything else. When we reach out from inside ourselves, politics works well. Those are good things to do, and this report says that we should do them and prepare other people to do them. The methodology is very similar to that devised by—back to the mafia of the mis-spellers—the British Dyslexia Association for training people in schools to deal with those in neurodiverse communities. It is important that there is expertise and support in this area.
If I were an Education Minister, I would instinctively go for two strategies. One would be to hide under the biggest desk in the room; the other would be to punt it down the road. We are talking about making a structural shift. My noble friend Lord Alderdice hinted at one or two of these things, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, suggested that the current system would be okay if only we would put a bit more effort into it. I think that the system is broken. It is out of date and reflects the old times. Politicians tend to be reactive—they say, “That was the problem yesterday. Let’s fix it today”—and we have a system that fixes the problems of some time ago. We have to try to address this situation in a new way, and this document gives us the platform to start thinking about that.
We do not need to reinforce faith. Jedi got on to the census. To the English, religion is a movable feast that does not go down certain tram-lines. It does not even go on branch lines; it is hiking across hills somewhere. Then we have groups that want to acquire an identity. Those of Islamic faith seem to defend themselves and their identity by hanging on to aspects of religion. We have to try to make these people see each other as the norm and not as alien. If you are alien, we can disagree with you and persecute you because you are not us. We are right and, if you are not us, you must be wrong.
This approach is a good one; if the Minister can give us some idea about how the Government are starting to address some of the ideas, I would be very grateful. However, the point of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice—throwing a few more pounds at the problem, training three or four more teachers and saying everything will be fine and quoting a couple of statistics about a pass rate at, say, GCSE—does not begin to touch this. The important bit will be in primary schools to get the base of understanding.
If the noble Lord can give us some idea, I will be very surprised—it is a difficult question and this may be the opening shot—but primary is where we must put the emphasis on. Understanding will probably lead to great rewards in the future.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, this is a welcome debate on an important subject, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on securing it. Of course, the sands have shifted considerably since he did so; as we know, the Secretary of State has set out the Government’s position in a letter to the commission’s chair, the Very Reverend Dr John Hall. That letter amounted to little more than platitudes, followed by a blunt dismissal of the report’s recommendations and a firm refusal by the Secretary of State to address the current state of the delivery of religious education in our schools. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, was being kind when he described it as negative and disappointing.
Religious education is a vital academic subject, providing important knowledge as well as the tools to develop critical thinking and ask informed questions. It is important for pupils to have the opportunity to learn about all faiths and beliefs and to understand the way that these impact on how people view the world.
The commission’s report is the result of two years of consultation and has been widely welcomed, most notably by the Church of England, the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education, the National Association of Head Teachers and Humanists UK. We share the view of the National Education Union that it should form the start of a much-needed conversation about the place of religious education in our schools. The report confirmed that the pressures on schools to focus on limited, tested subjects and the shortage of teachers with the appropriate subject knowledge make it difficult to focus on religious education.
The commission’s headline recommendation is that the subject of religious education should be renamed religion and world views, which we endorse. That would allow the subject to be fully inclusive of humanism, reflecting the facts—uncomfortable for some, no doubt—that more than a quarter of people have humanist beliefs and values, and that more people self-identify as non-religious and humanist than the total number of adherents of all non-Christian religions in this country.
I note from their responses to the report that the Catholic Education Service and the Board of Deputies of British Jews—bodies that I respect—oppose the addition of humanism and other non-religious perspectives to religious education. Both organisations suggest that the incorporation of world views into the syllabus would somehow diminish religious education. In his response to the report, the Secretary of State said that he had received similar representations. I contend that, with the number of pupils taking religious studies at A-level having fallen by 22% since 2017, and with 70% of people aged 18 to 24 identifying as having no religion, the inclusion of a diverse range of world views would make religious education better equipped to remain relevant to young people growing up in 21st-century Britain, both those with religion and those without.
Currently, legislation and funding agreements require all state-funded schools to deliver religious education. Yet it is clearly not a subject that the Government hold as being of much importance, having been further sidelined by the introduction of the EBacc. Further evidence was provided earlier this year when the Schools Minister, Mr Gibb, stated in a reply to a Written Question:
“Ofsted does not routinely compliance check whether schools, Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education … or Agreed Syllabus Conferences … are meeting all of their statutory requirements”.
Why would that not be a matter of routine importance to Ofsted? As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester said, if the requirements relating to the teaching of religious education are statutory, then by definition they must be complied with. That echoes the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that 33% of schools do not offer religious education at key stage 4.
Will the Government begin ensuring that the current law is upheld by schools in terms of religious education, or are they planning to rescind that part of the statute? Which is it? The Government cannot continue conniving in the law being effectively ignored in such a manner. This laissez-faire approach adds weight to the commission’s recommendation that a national entitlement to the subject should be introduced in place of existing legal requirements. With the Government apparently unable or unwilling to ensure that religious education meets their statutory requirements, having a nationwide entitlement would ensure that parents knew what they could demand of their child’s school and have clear recourse were it not to be met. This should become statutory for all publicly funded schools and, for maintained schools, should replace the requirement to follow the locally agreed syllabus.
The commission also recommends that for faith schools, a requirement should be introduced to provide religion and world views within the national entitlement. This would be provided in addition to any faith-based education and, again, is not supported by either the Catholic Education Service or the Board of Deputies of British Jews—I think I can understand why. Labour is minded to support that recommendation but, before doing so, we intend to meet both those organisations and those representing other faiths to understand why they believe that by teaching pupils at their schools about world views, they would undermine the teaching that they currently offer. Surely, those religions are more than robust enough to withstand their adherents receiving a broader understanding of the philosophy that underpins the beliefs of others. No matter; the law is quite clear that humanism should be included on an equal basis to the major religions—indeed, this was the conclusion of a 2015 judicial review of the matter.
This is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, suggested, about telling faith communities that they are no longer welcome. That is a mischaracterisation of those who advocate broadening and deepening the curriculum through critical thought and reasoning. In its response to the Secretary of State’s letter, the Religious Education Council said that it was disappointed by his reaction to the report which,
“fails to grasp the urgent need for reform of Religious Education to better prepare young people for life in modern Britain”.
That is a view with which we concur. The Government should think again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for securing this debate. I am grateful for this opportunity to set out the Government’s position on religious education and our response to the Commission on Religious Education’s report. During this debate, noble Lords have argued strongly for the importance of religious education and a commitment to its continuation and improvement. The Government share that commitment.
We have decided that now is not the time to implement the commission’s ambitious recommendations radically to reform religious education. However, the Government agree that good-quality religious education can develop children’s knowledge of the values and traditions of Britain and other countries. It can foster understanding among different faiths and cultures. It is an essential part of a school’s legal duty to promote young people’s spiritual, moral and cultural development. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, when he said that we have to help children to understand their way of being in the world.
Schools and colleges have a duty actively to promote fundamental British values as part of the duty to prevent people becoming drawn into terrorism. These shared values—democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and respect and tolerance for those of other faiths and beliefs—unite us and underpin our society. The religious landscape of this country forms part of those principles, and the noble Lord, Lord Stone, referred to the value of unity and oneness. Understanding our British values is a vital part of that. I perhaps have more faith in the power of the teaching of British values than other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, and it is of course still an evolving part of the responsibility of schools, having been introduced only recently.
According to the school workforce statistics, 3.3% of all teaching hours in state-funded secondary schools in 2017 were spent teaching religious education. This compares with a figure of 3.2% in 2010, so it has remained broadly stable over that period. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, worries that we do not have enough time in the curriculum for the teaching of religious education. However, we do not specify that equal time needs to be spent by each year group on the subject, only that it must be taught throughout a pupil’s school life. For example, there is no reason why schools could not dedicate more time at key stage 3 than at key stage 4, when pupils are generally not studying for GCSE. The key stage 3 national curriculum is designed as a three-year programme of study to prepare children to start GCSEs in year 10.
The noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Alderdice, worry that there is not enough time at key stage 4. Having said that, the EBacc was designed to be limited in size to allow pupils to continue to study additional subjects and reflect their individual interests and strengths. This allows not only for schools to teach RE, as we would expect, at key stage 4, but for religious studies to be a feasible GCSE option.
However, one of the commission’s most concerning statements was that it had found a number of maintained schools and academies either no longer teaching RE or no longer teaching it as a dedicated subject. On that point, I would like to be very clear: RE is not optional. Schools not teaching it are acting unlawfully or are in breach of their academy funding agreements. We will take action if this is found to be the case.
I assure the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Alderdice, that where we are made aware of a school not meeting its duty to provide religious education, my department will investigate, as long as the school’s complaint procedures have been followed. In the last two years, the department has received only one formal complaint about a school not complying with its area’s agreed syllabus for religious education. Following the department’s intervention, the school has revised its curriculum to meet requirements.
One of the commission’s key recommendations is to change legislation so that all state-funded schools have to deliver the national entitlement on religion and world views. Reworded legislation would therefore be extended to encompass non-religious world views. Many teachers already cover aspects of world views in their RE lessons. Both GCSE and A-level content specifications include reference to non-religious views. But the potential scope of what could be considered a world view is very wide. Agreeing precisely what should be taught as part of a national entitlement would be fraught with difficulty.
The commission’s report suggests that existentialism and Confucianism are examples of suitable non-religious world views as they each make ontological and epistemological claims. This illustrates how defining world views and then deciding those worthy of study is complex. There is a risk that religious education is diluted in an attempt to embrace many other strands of thinking. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raises the responses of the Catholic Education Service and the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Both have publicly expressed their concern about this. They are unlikely to be alone. This would make it difficult to agree a consensus.
An important focus of the commission report was the need to recruit, train and retain specialist teachers of religious education. This is key to maintaining the integrity of the subject and the quality of teaching. In recognition of this, we made two announcements in September. First, we increased bursaries so that RE trainees with a First, 2.1, 2.2, PhD or Master’s will now receive £9,000. Secondly, we allocated new funding for religious education subject knowledge enhancement courses of up to eight weeks. These offer graduates the chance to refresh their subject knowledge either before or during initial teacher training.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester raises the importance of Ofsted assessments of religious education, and I agree with him that this is an important part of an inspection of a school. I will take back his suggestion that to achieve an outstanding grade, schools should provide good-quality religious education.
The noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Watson, worry about the decline in teaching of religious education in schools. Actually, the picture is not quite as bleak as one might think. There was a 21% increase in the number of pupils entered for the full-course RE GCSE between 2010 and 2018, from 176,000 to 213,000 pupils. There has also been an increase in the percentage of the total key stage 4 cohort entered for this examination, from 28% in 2010 to 37% in 2018. This is important.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I thank the Minister for giving way. He talks about key stage 4, but as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said and I repeated, a third of key stage 4 students do not get religious education, so cannot sit exams in it. If the Minister wants to increase the figures, as I think we all do, surely he should be getting those 33% of schools to make sure they do what they should be doing under the law and teach religious education at key stage 4.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
Referring to my earlier point, we will always investigate any serious allegation about the non-teaching of religious education, and this report certainly highlights examples of that. If they are referred to us, we will certainly investigate. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Watson, we are committed to ensuring that religious education remains a key part of a child’s education.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned Article 18—freedom of religion—and violations of it. The Government are concerned about the severity of violations of the freedom of religious belief in many parts of the world. Defending and promoting human rights is an essential aim of the foreign policy of global Britain, and derives from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The report mentions that the right to withdraw from religious education has existed in our education system since 1870 and was reconfirmed in legislation in the 1944 and 1988 education Acts. The commission found that many schools are not clear on the scope of this right and how to handle applications for withdrawal. The report recommended that the DfE provide clearer guidance. Since then the National Association of Head Teachers and the National Association of Teachers of RE have produced guidance for schools on this issue. The Government are comfortable with this guidance; my department will help to raise awareness of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised a concern about the locally agreed syllabus for RE. For many schools the current requirement is that they follow a locally agreed syllabus monitored by the standing advisory councils for religious education. The department’s guidance is clear: that at local level, representatives of religious and other interests can serve as formal or co-opted members on both SACREs and in groups of this conference to review the locally-agreed syllabus. These are important principles which should not be lost without more careful consideration.
I thank the Commission on Religious Education for its well-considered report. Although it offers radical options for reform which at the moment we cannot consider implementing, we welcome the debate that it generates. The Secretary of State for Education has been clear that reducing teacher workload is one of his top priorities, and as part of that he committed in March not to make further changes to the curriculum. In this context we must decline to take forward the commission’s vision for the future of RE in England.
House of Lords
Rohingya Refugees
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmed
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the situation of Rohingya refugees and the likelihood of their safe return to Burma.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, conditions in the camps in Bangladesh have improved but remain difficult for the Rohingya community. The United Kingdom has provided £129 million of assistance since August 2017. We welcome Bangladesh’s continuing generosity in hosting the Rohingya community and its commitment to the principle of voluntariness on repatriations. I agree with the UN Refugee Agency’s assessment that conditions are not in place for safe and sustainable returns, and I assure the noble Lord that the UK will continue to press for independent monitoring by all UN agencies.
Lord Ahmed (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he join me in thanking the Department for International Development for providing support to the most oppressed people in the world? Is he aware that last Thursday the US House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution, by 394 votes to one, identifying crimes against the Rohingya in Myanmar as genocide? Will Her Majesty’s Government support the indictment of the Burmese generals and civilian leaders responsible for this genocide in the International Criminal Court?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, on the earlier point, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. It is true that we can all be proud of the role that the Department for International Development has played over many years on behalf of those people who are suffering the worst crises, including humanitarian crises and the ethnic cleansing that we have seen of the Rohingya community in Burma. On the issue of Congress, I am aware of that vote—but, as the noble Lord will know, it is a long-standing position that we regard attributing genocide as an issue for judicial authorities. However, the United Kingdom is playing a key role in gathering evidence to ensure that the perpetrators of these crimes can be brought to justice.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, 700,000 Rohingya have now fled to Bangladesh and there are reports of villages being burned and horrific human rights violations including the burning of homes, schools and mosques; the deliberate burning of people to death inside their homes; mass rape; torture; execution without trial; the blocking of aid; and similar offences being conducted against the Shan and the Kachin as well. So is the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, not right to call for this, regardless of the vote in the American Congress, to be referred to the International Criminal Court? Why is the United Kingdom not laying a resolution before the Security Council calling for a global arms embargo on the Burmese Army, with targeted sanctions against Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and calling for Daw Suu, Aung San Suu Kyi, to speak out forcefully against these horrific offences?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Lord has raised various issues. First, he is quite right to point out that, as your Lordships’ House may be aware, there has not yet been a UN resolution. However, I assure him that we are speaking to all international partners, including those on the Security Council, to find a way forward on this. He will be aware that there are particular perspectives, most notably from the Chinese, which would, in our view, result in any ICC referral being blocked. We believe in the institution of the International Criminal Court and in its reforms, but any referral to it should carry full support. Looking at what has been debated and agreed in the Security Council over the last 12 months, thus far we have kept unanimity. That remains a primary objective, but I assure the noble Lord that we keep in mind the issue of all persecuted minorities—in Kachin and Shan provinces as well. We will ensure that evidence is collected and the perpetrators ultimately brought to justice in a local or international court.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, there seems to be no prospect of the safe return of Rohingya refugees to Burma. This will remain so until we accept the full findings and recommendations of the United Nations fact-finding mission. Why are we so reluctant to do so? Does the Minister accept that two issues need to be resolved? The first and central issue is citizenship being denied to Rohingya refugees. Their citizenship is objected to by Aung San Suu Kyi, who should know better. The second is the attempt to secure referral to the International Criminal Court, which has so far stalled. Surely we cannot accept refugees being returned to Burma until those who have perpetrated such vile crimes against them are brought to justice.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I totally agree with the noble Lord. On the issue of the fact-finding mission, he will know that we were one of the co-sponsors of that resolution in March 2017, and we agree with many of the mission’s findings. On the issue of safe return, I assure the noble Lord that there was talk of an agreement having been reached between Burma and Bangladesh in November this year for returns to start. However, we are very clear that they cannot start until certain conditions are met. First and foremost, they must be voluntary. The safety and security of the refugees is paramount. We have raised that, and I met with the Information Minister of Bangladesh on Thursday and again gained that very reassurance.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
Does the Minister agree that, given the extreme unlikelihood of all the world’s 62 million refugees and IDPs being able to return home, once the United Kingdom has left the European Union we will be in a far better position to decide who to have here? I ask particularly that some of the Rohingya refugees, as well as some others globally, should be given entry into the United Kingdom once we are in in a better position to make our own decisions.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the history of the United Kingdom as a place which grants support to refugees from all over the world predates our membership of the European Union and will remain after Brexit. I pride myself on being in the Government of a country which over the years has stood up in support of refugees, internationally and in the UK. This continues today and will continue tomorrow.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, the diocese of Winchester has had a link with Burma/Myanmar since the late 19th century. This gateway state to Asia is therefore of great interest to the praying Christians of the diocese. Will the Minister confirm what action Her Majesty’s Government have taken to ensure the guaranteed security of existing internally displaced persons in Rakhine state and of any refugees who voluntarily return to Myanmar?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The right reverend Prelate raises an important issue about ensuring the security and safety of those who are in Burma. We continue to raise this directly with the civilian and military authorities. He will be aware that one of the first visits that the Foreign Secretary made on his appointment was to Burma to raise the very concerns that the right reverend Prelate highlighted.
On the safe return of refugees, I made it clear in answer to the previous question that the United Kingdom stands by the Rohingya community and supports their needs in Bangladesh. They should not return until we can guarantee their safety and security—and, above all, their return should be voluntary.
Poverty in the United Kingdom
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the statement by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, published on 16 November, following his visit to the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
The Government will consider the special rapporteur’s interim findings carefully. Although they disagree with his conclusions, the Government note that the report welcomes the simplification of the benefits system through universal credit and the recent Budget announcements to help tackle in-work poverty. Compared with 2010, income equality has fallen, the number of children in workless households is at a record low and 1 million fewer people are in absolute poverty, including 300,000 children.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The rapporteur held up a shaming mirror to poverty in our country, reinforced today by teachers’ warning of the increasingly devastating impact on their pupils. The Government’s response demonstrated their state of denial and indifference towards the impact of their policies that he criticised. Instead of constantly hiding behind cherry-picked statistics, as they have done today, why do they not listen and learn, go out and talk to people in poverty, as the rapporteur did, and end their social security and other policies that, in his words, are inflicting great and unnecessary misery?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Baroness thinks that the Government are not listening. Only last week, she heard directly from front-line staff at the Department for Work and Pensions—I am grateful to her for coming to the department—about the vital work they do 24/7 to ensure that claimants receive the right support. In turn, I listened to the special rapporteur on Radio 4 say that people receive no funds for between five and 12 weeks when they enrol on to universal credit. That is just plain wrong and, frankly, undermines the credibility of this report.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, will the Government supply us with a plan for how they are going to rescue that wonderful thing, which is that work gives social mobility and social opportunity, at a time when it is obvious that in-work poverty is increasing at a greater rate than out-of-work poverty?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I greatly support what the noble Lord has always said—we believe in giving people a hand up, rather than a handout, which is about empowering people and giving them the right support. Each universal credit claimant has a caseworker and a work coach who gives them the right support in their family or personal surroundings and then, through little steps at a time, helps and encourages them into work to support them, their family and their children. They are empowered, given confidence and lifted out of poverty.
Lord Fink (Con)
My Lords, I had the pleasure—if you can call it that—of attending the APPG at which the special rapporteur met with many Members of Parliament. I was shocked, particularly by his statement that the Government do not listen. I visited a jobcentre and got a slightly different impression. Can the Minister give some examples of cases where the Government have listened?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, the great thing about the universal credit system is that it is being built in-house at the Department for Work and Pensions. It is more agile, and constant changes and improvements can be made, based on what we are learning from our work coaches and caseworkers. We have made hundreds of changes to the system already. We are talking to 80 stakeholders who will work—not just talk— with us to co-design the system for managed migration. We will spend seven months with those 80 stakeholders before we even begin to manage-migrate people on to universal credit. We know that the outcomes for these people will be better and will empower their lives.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
There is so much in this report that one could ask about, but on page 17 it gives a devastating indictment of government policy:
“In-work poverty is increasingly common and almost 60% of those in poverty … are in families where someone works”.
But that is not the worst of it. It continues:
“There are 2.8 million people living in poverty in families where all adults in the household work”.
How can this be and what are the Government going to do about it?
Baroness Buscombe
Let me give the noble Lord an example: a couple with three children have to work only 24 hours per week between them—say, 12 hours each—to be in receipt of benefits equivalent to a salary of £35,000 per year plus housing support. Does the noble Lord think that is unfair?
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I was delighted to hear that it is fairly simple to change the structure of universal credit. How quickly will the Government ensure that split payments are available for people who are potentially in a situation of financial abuse?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, we do not need to change the system. Split payments are already available to those in need of them and who ask for them. We are talking to different stakeholders. The noble Baroness might have heard that only a few days ago, I spoke to Refuge and Women’s Aid about how this might work and whether split payments are the panacea—we do not believe they are—in supporting people who are suffering from domestic abuse. We are looking at a number of other ways that we can better support people, rather than just focusing on split payments.
Occupied Palestinian Territories
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidance they provide to United Kingdom companies who wish to trade with companies based in Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, a company’s decision to trade with businesses based in Israeli settlements is primarily commercial. When considering activities in the region, the Government urge British businesses to consider the illegal nature of Israeli settlements under international law. We also encourage British businesses to take account of our Overseas Business Risk online guidance, which provides comprehensive information on the security and political risks of trading in the region.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for that reply and for talking about international law. Is she aware that I table Questions every week concerning the actions of the Israeli Government in Palestine, putting on record the relentless expansion of those settlements and the appalling behaviour of the settlers, including the demolition of Palestinian property, the destruction of their farmland, the denial of their fishing rights and the theft of their water? Does she realise that I have asked Questions about the imprisonment of Palestinian children and the maiming and killing of others? This is not to forget the blockade of Gaza, which the United Nations has said will be uninhabitable by 2020. Does she agree that these are all examples of Israel breaking international law, human rights law and the Fourth Geneva Convention? The Government have admitted this in the Answers that I receive, which I have here. When will our Government stop talking and writing Answers to Questions and take action to stop Israel’s illegal activities, as they do when other countries misbehave? Do we have to wait another 70 years?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I am aware of the noble Baroness’s interest in this area and of the many Written Questions that she has laid down. To restate what has been outlined on numerous occasions, the UK’s position on the settlements is clear. They are illegal under international law, present an obstacle to peace and threaten the physical viability of the two-state solution. That is why we supported UN Security Council Resolution 2334, regularly raise our grave concerns on this issue with the Government of Israel and urge them to reverse their policy on settlement expansion.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, while consumers undoubtedly have the right to know the origin of the goods they buy, does the Minister agree that it sets a dangerous precedent to encourage consumers to determine their purchases on the ethnicity or nationality of the producer?
Baroness Manzoor
I thank my noble friend for that question. We understand the concerns of people who do not wish to purchase goods exported from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We also welcome the European Commission’s decision in November 2015 to issue indication of origin guidelines for products produced in the Israeli settlements. It is up to British retailers who stock settlement produce to voluntarily adopt the labelling policy recommended by Defra.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that some 50,000 Palestinians work for Israeli companies in the West Bank and that Israeli trade unions ensure that the Palestinians are paid at exactly the same rate as the Israelis for the same jobs and receive the same benefits? I can do no better than quote Nabil Basherat, a Palestinian who said:
“The BDS movement has threatened my job security and livelihood … and damaged the livelihoods of hundreds … of factory workers”.
Does the Minister agree that the BDS movement damages Palestinians much more than it does Israel?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I agree that boycotts of any kind are damaging for both Palestinians and Israelis. The UK strongly opposes boycotts of Israel, which divide people and reduce understanding, but, as I said, that is why the UK, along with many businesses and institutions, operates a policy of differentiation in relation to Israeli borders. It is quite right that we take the stance that there are no boycotts in these areas because they damage the economy for both sides.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.
Baroness Sheehan
Does the Minister agree that British companies must ensure that none of their products is used in the demolition of Palestinian homes and properties in the Occupied Territories? In her response, will she address in particular the use of JCB bulldozers in the flattening of Palestinian homes and schools?
Baroness Manzoor
I have already made known our stance on the boycotting of goods. The UK Government have had discussions with JCB on a range of subjects. Where a company decides to trade is ultimately a decision for each company to reach, taking account of the legal and regulatory environment as well as international human rights law. The British Government will continue to encourage and foster respect for human rights among UK businesses.
Lord Pickles
My Lords, surely the point made by the noble Lord opposite is pursuant: unemployment and poverty further extremism. Surely it makes sense to spread prosperity given that 10% of the working population in the West Bank is employed within these settlements. Given that the Oslo accords envisage land swaps, surely it makes sense for peace to spread prosperity and give people a chance to get out of the hands of the men of blood.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the opportunity is there. If you had listened to the radio this morning, you would have heard young Palestinians and Israelis desiring the same thing: the opportunity to prosper and use their skills. What are the Government doing to ensure we have two communities working together and that we end up with a two-state solution, in which both communities can prosper?
Baroness Manzoor
As the noble Lord is aware, the UK Government support a two-state solution. As I have said, the UK is a close friend of Israel and we enjoy excellent bilateral relationships. The British Government helped to establish the UK Israel Tech Hub, a non-profit organisation based in Tel Aviv and London, to help British companies looking for cutting-edge innovation and Israeli start-ups seeking to go through the UK. This kind of innovation is important to help individuals living in both Israel and Palestine, and to ensure we have good economic prosperity in the region.
Asylum Seekers: Removal
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to halt the removal of failed asylum seekers to countries to which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office advise against all travel for British citizens; and if not, why not.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s travel advice to British nationals is not the correct legal test to determine whether a person qualifies for international protection or whether to remove a foreign national with no right to remain in the UK.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
I am delighted to wish the Minister a happy Christmas. I only ask her: when will I be able to do that to those who have indefinite detention in the UK under the present immigration law? That is my first question. My second question is: when are we going to end deportation to Congo, Afghanistan and Somalia of those who have come from there? Our people are not encouraged to go there at all; they are advised not to go there, and yet we keep on deporting people. We have deported 700 to Afghanistan, nearly 100 to Somalia and many more to Congo in the last couple of years. Is it not time the Minister stopped trying to defend our humanitarian policies, when all they are doing is sending people into war zones where many face the death penalty?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, that is a gross exaggeration of the fact. The noble Lord conflates two things, which are the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s advice to people travelling for holidays and other reasons and our obligations under the 1951 convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. He asks about indefinite detention. There is no indefinite detention. Most cases are sorted out within four months. As for people being deported, the FCO does not advise against travel to the whole of the countries the noble Lord mentions—Congo, Somalia and Afghanistan. It only advises against travel to parts of those countries. Also, when we send people back who have no legal right to be here, we do so with the humanitarian considerations that I have outlined in mind.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Baroness further on her comment about humanitarian considerations. How is an assessment of individual safety undertaken if someone is being removed to another country? I refer in particular to their political activities, their gender or their sexual orientation. When someone is returned to another country, what follow-up is undertaken to ensure that they are indeed safe?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As I said to the noble Lord, the UK bases its decisions on two conventions, the 1951 convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. If, for example, an LGBT person was to be sent back to a country or to an area in a country where they would be persecuted for their sexuality, we would not send them back.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, how does the Minister define the word “indefinite”? In my dictionary, it means that there is no fixed time limit. We are unusual in this country in having no fixed time limit for detention. It does not mean that people are held in detention for ever, as she seemed to imply in her response to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
People are not held in detention for ever. As I said to the noble Lord, the vast majority of cases are determined within four months of someone being held in detention. I do not know of anyone who has been detained indefinitely.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, do not these questions highlight the extremely sensitive judgments that caseworkers in her department have to make? Would she consider arranging for Members of your Lordships’ House to visit caseworkers to hear from them about their experience, how well they are supported and how much time they are given to make these very important and delicate decisions?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I totally agree with the noble Earl that these decisions are incredibly sensitive, in particular when it comes to the things mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, such as political activities, sexuality and even religion, which has been mentioned many times in this House. I will be happy to meet the noble Earl. I do not know if I will be able to arrange for him to visit caseworkers, but I will be happy to outline for him the framework in which we make decisions.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister confident that the Home Office’s country policy and information notes are always accurate and reliable? I understand that information is taken from a number of sources and that that can include newspapers from the country of origin. However, they may be countries where the regime interferes with press freedom.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I can assure the noble Baroness that we are mindful of our human rights obligations. Our caseworking decisions go through three lines of scrutiny, and over the past few months we have indeed improved the scrutiny and decision-making processes. I am confident that the system we now have in place is far better and more humane than perhaps is the case with some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Home Office in the past. The Windrush episode has reminded us carefully about how we should treat people who come to this country.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I apologise for coming back to the noble Baroness, but this is a point for clarification. I do not have a dictionary to hand, but I think that she has confused the word “indefinite” with “for ever”. All the word “indefinite” means is that there is no time limit. Does that mean that she is now willing to set a time limit so that detention would not be indefinite?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is not defined by time. What I would say is that we endeavour to determine applications as quickly as possible and we would certainly not want anyone to be detained indefinitely on our estate.
Privileges and Conduct Committee
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the further Report from the Select Committee on the conduct of Lord Lester of Herne Hill (3rd Report, HL Paper 252) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, Lord Lester resigned as a Member of the House on Wednesday last week, a few hours before this report was published. As a result, Lord Lester is no longer a Member of the House and the recommendation for his suspension is unnecessary. Nevertheless, the report before us today is an important part of the process. It sets out several key points of principle which the House is invited to endorse. I urge the House to agree the report, both to deliver justice to the complainant, Jasvinder Sanghera, and to give confidence to other possible complainants and respondents that we have a robust but fair process in place for investigating allegations. That point is key. Since the debate on 15 November, there have been comments in the media, and by members of the public, suggesting a loss of confidence in our ability to hold our Members to account. We must work to regain that confidence today.
On 15 November, the House debated the committee’s original report on the conduct of Lord Lester. During that debate, a number of criticisms were made of the House’s procedure, and of the commissioner’s investigation. These criticisms relate to the need to ensure that investigation is fair and provides natural justice for both the complainant and the Member; whether such investigations should involve cross-examination; the need for the evidence to be robustly tested; the standard of proof required for the commissioner to reach her finding; and the question of legal representation. At the end of that debate, the House voted to remit the original report to the Privileges and Conduct Committee on the grounds that the commissioner had,
“failed to comply with paragraph 21 of the Code of Conduct which required her to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness”.—[Official Report, 15/11/18; col. 1995.]
The House asked us to think again, and we have taken great care to reflect on the arguments made in the debate. In doing so, we have drawn on not only the considerable legal and investigatory experience of individual committee members but expert input from Dr Helen Mott, a specialist in understanding the psychology of the perpetration and experience of sexual harassment, research from the Library of the House, and the policies and practices of other parliaments and professional organisations in dealing with such cases. We have also considered further submissions from both Lord Lester and the complainant, Jasvinder Sanghera, which are published with our latest report.
Our report before the House today robustly and fully addresses each of the criticisms made in the previous debate. It reaffirms the recommendations in our original report that Lord Lester,
“breached paragraph 8(b) of the Code of Conduct by failing to act on his personal honour—and specifically, that in the course of his Parliamentary duties, he had sexually harassed a member of the public and offered her corrupt inducements to sleep with him”.
It restates our unanimous support for the commissioner, who conducted her investigation,
“to the highest standards of fairness and rigour”.
She did so in accordance with a process set out in the Code of Conduct, which each of us signs at the start of each Parliament. That afforded Lord Lester every chance to put his case across and question the evidence against him.
I do not intend to set out those parts of the report which deal with factual questions about the detail of the investigation. They speak for themselves, and I believe the House has already gone further than it should in reopening the commissioner’s inquiry. However, I wish to summarise our response to the points made in the debate about the fairness of the processes. The report shows clearly that it is best practice in complaints of this nature to follow an inquisitorial process, with no cross-examination. We are not just heeding the advice of experts, such as Dr Helen Mott; we are also absolutely in line with the practice of the bodies which regulate the conduct of Ministers, judges, and parliamentarians in similar legislatures around the United Kingdom and beyond.
Our system works because the commissioner interrogates the evidence, particularly that of the complainant and the respondent, and gives all parties the right to challenge the evidence at each stage. This is an internal disciplinary process, not a judicial one. We simply do not accept that cross-examination, whether conducted by a QC advising the commissioner or anybody else, would be appropriate. Indeed, it would put us out of line with most comparable organisations and the advice received.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests: I have been a friend and colleague of Lord Lester for many years. I assisted him during the disciplinary process, although I was not allowed to speak on his behalf. On 15 November, I moved the amendment that the Commissioner for Standards had failed to comply with paragraph 21 of the Code of Conduct because the process was not fair or in accordance with natural justice, which the House approved by 101 votes to 78. I have not tabled an amendment today because, as the Senior Deputy Speaker mentioned, Lord Lester has resigned, but I want to make three points.
First, I think it is a matter of regret that the committee did not accept the view expressed by the House on 15 November. We had a three-hour debate and views were expressed on both sides of this difficult issue. I expected the committee to move forward with an approach that accepted the view of the House, rather than contradicting it. When we engage in parliamentary ping-pong, it is with the House of Commons, not with ourselves—not with a committee of this House. It is regrettable that the committee did not accept the view of this House.
Secondly, although the committee has satisfied itself that the procedures in this case were fair and in accordance with natural justice, I can tell the House that that is not the view of a substantial number of Members, who have expressed that view to me. From my discussions with senior lawyers and judges outside the House, I can also tell the House that that community’s overwhelming view is that, but for parliamentary privilege, this report would not withstand challenge in a court of law. That is for all or some of the reasons set out in the opinion of David Perry QC and Rosemary Davidson attached to the original report of the committee; I agree with the Senior Deputy Speaker that it is unnecessary and inappropriate to go into that today.
The courts would not find what is said in paragraph 15 of the second report from the committee very persuasive. It relies on a decision made by Lord Denning in 1952, but the standards of disciplinary justice and administrative law have moved on in the last 66 years. The courts would not find the arguments summarised by the Senior Deputy Speaker—that this is an internal disciplinary matter, where we follow the same procedures as other parliamentary assemblies—very persuasive. This is a matter where an individual’s reputation has been destroyed by reference to allegations of what is said to have occurred over 11 years ago. That requires the highest standards of fairness in the procedures. That point was made by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in 1999. I agree with what his committee said at paragraph 280 of its report, that disciplinary proceedings in Parliament, whether against Members or non-Members, should be brought into line with what were described as “contemporary standards of fairness”. It said at paragraph 281 that it was “essential” that there should be,
“safeguards at least as rigorous as those applied in the courts and professional disciplinary bodies”.
For the avoidance of any doubt, I emphasise that I am not saying, and I have never said, that the House should believe Lord Lester rather than Ms Sanghera. I do not know who is telling the truth about this matter. I am not naive. I recognise that otherwise respectable men do very odd things in relation to sex. I have constantly argued that the only fair and effective way to determine who is telling the truth is to follow the procedures, which include cross-examination, which are accepted in courts of law and other disciplinary tribunals. I recognise of course that the process must be fair to the complainant as well as to the person accused, but there is no inconsistency in believing, as I do, both that sexual harassment and abuse of power are serious wrongs that should be properly investigated and, when proved, should be punished, and that allegations of this nature, like all other allegations of serious misconduct, must be addressed by a fair and rigorous process. That is not disrespectful to complainants or—to answer the Senior Deputy Speaker—damaging to the reputation of this House. Indeed, if anything is damaging to the reputation of this House it is not to adopt in relation to these matters procedures that withstand serious scrutiny.
The Senior Deputy Speaker also suggested that it is unfair to criticise the commissioner because she cannot answer back. With great respect, that is wrong in principle and in fact. It is wrong in principle because in any other public context a decision can be challenged in court. The commissioner cannot be immune from reasoned criticism, especially when paragraph 21 requires her to act fairly. It is wrong in fact because the commissioner did answer back. She responded to the points made by Lord Lester to the Privileges and Conduct Committee.
My third and final point is that the committee should take a hard look at our procedures for the future. Those procedures ought to implement the recommendations of the Nicholls committee in 1999, particularly those relating to cross-examination and the right to legal representation. I note that in Written Answer HL 2916 on 16 November 2017 the Senior Deputy Speaker said in relation to complaints of sexual assault and sexual harassment:
“The procedures and processes for investigating complaints made under the Code were not designed with complaints of this nature in mind and this is something … the Committee for Privileges and Conduct will need to consider”.
This case has illustrated that the noble Lord was correct in that statement. The procedures are not designed to address a complaint of this nature, and careful consideration is now required as to what amendments to introduce in the light of this unhappy episode. I say “unhappy” because it has been a painful experience of course for Ms Sanghera and for Lord Lester, but also for many noble Lords, including myself and, I am sure, the members of the committee. I have much regretted taking a different view on this issue from many noble Lords who I much respect.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I did not speak during the debate on 15 November, nor did the leaders of the other main political groups, despite all of us being members of the Privileges and Conduct Committee who unanimously supported its conclusions. We felt then, as now, that whether or not to endorse the committee’s report is not a party-political decision but a House decision. However, as Leader of this House, I feel that today I should speak briefly.
As the Senior Deputy Speaker has said, to an extent the recommendations of the committee’s report have been overtaken by Lord Lester’s decision to retire from the House last Wednesday. But it remains important for us to come to a conclusion on the Motion before the House in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McFall. For my part, I fully support it. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is not intending to speak today, but he has asked me to make it clear that the report has his full support too.
I and my fellow members of the Privileges and Conduct Committee believe that the commissioner carefully and methodically followed the procedures set out for her by our Code of Conduct, which I am confident comply with the procedures of natural justice and fairness. Our commissioner is both impartial and independent. She sought and received instruction from the sub-committee in the way she approached the investigation. She ensured that Lord Lester was aware of all the points made by the complainant, and had time to respond to them, and she carefully evaluated all the evidence and explained why she reached her conclusions. A great deal of work went into the investigation of the complaint and into ensuring both parties were given a fair opportunity to comment, and that is only right: two people’s reputations were at stake.
During the debate on 15 November, much was said about the process followed by the commissioner not being fair, because it did not provide for cross-examination, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has repeated. The absence of cross-examination does not mean that the process followed was unfair. Our code provides for an inquisitorial rather than an adversarial system to determine breaches. What is necessary—and what our code provides—is an impartial adjudicator who takes full statements from all parties, gives each party notice of the case made by the others, gives all parties the opportunity to respond and carefully reaches decisions by thorough testing and evaluation of all available evidence. That is what our commissioner did.
As a House, we should show that we support the processes that we ourselves have put in place and that we are capable of regulating ourselves. I am sure that I am not alone in being very concerned at the letter sent by 74 well-esteemed staff of this House expressing their disappointment in the outcome of our previous debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, this has not been a happy experience for any of us, but I truly hope that following our further debate today, noble Lords will support the report of the committee.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I was not present at the previous debate. Ironically, I was in India speaking to a gathering of senior judges about the failure of justice systems to deliver justice for women and the underlying problems, sometimes with the law but more often with attitudes, that persist in our societies to the detriment of women.
Had I been here, I would not have voted. I would have recused myself because of my friendship with Anthony Lester. I have known him since I was a young barrister. I have huge admiration for him, and my fondness for him and his family is considerable, but we do not sit in judgment in cases involving a friend or a colleague. No juror would sit in a case where a friend was in the dock; no judge would sit in such a case. That is because friendships colour our judgment. We do not want to think ill of a friend. We see their pain and feel their humiliation. We hear their side of the story and want to believe it. That is in the nature of friendship; we are partisan.
That was why we created in this House an independent commissioner. It was because we recognised that the risks of partisanship were great. We recognised that institutions often protect their own, as we had seen the scandals around the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the BBC, the police and different aspects of the establishment. Reflecting on all that, we created the current rules.
I ask the same question as the Senior Deputy Speaker: when the previous debate took place, who was in the House to make the case for the complainant, to speak as her friends and to speak of her character and achievements? That was why, when I read the Hansard of the debate, I was covered in gloom: it was an ill judged and misconceived debate. Although it was presented as being about process, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others expressed views that implied they found such an accusation difficult to believe of their friend. That is how we all feel about our friends. The debate was presented as being about process, but it was not about justice.
All the tropes that imply that women are somehow not be to be relied on were presented to this House; for example, about delay. We have learned that delay is not a reason for not believing somebody, especially when they have experienced some transgression of a sexual kind. Things were said about writing something nice in a book about somebody who might have done something inappropriate to you, but probably every woman in this House will tell you how you get on with business after somebody has behaved inappropriately and try to normalise it so that your relationships can continue, especially if your promotion, your Bill, which you are trying to get through Parliament, or your pupillage might rely on the good will of the person who has crossed the line.
I want to remind the House of the terrible folly that has blighted this distressing business in the way that it has been discussed in the media and in this House: the confusion between criminal trial rules and disciplinary processes. This is not a criminal process—I want to emphasise that to many of the older lawyers in this House who do not seem to have kept up with the times and the disappointment that women feel about how legal processes fail them. This is a disciplinary process. Talk of proof beyond reasonable doubt, rigorous cross-examination and the need for counsel is wholly inappropriate.
Let us remember why: we are here dealing with an imbalance of power. That is the basis of the complaint. Women are complaining that their working lives and professional interactions are blighted by sexual harassment. There will be few women in this House who have not experienced it at some point in their careers. Many of us just learned to brush it off and get on with things but the young do not accept that any more; they want proper processes and they do not want it to be dealt with in the way that has been described by many of our older lawyers. Young women will not come forward to make complaints about powerful men if they are going to be subjected to Old Bailey-style quizzing in the presence of the very Lord they are complaining about.
Let us imagine that it is a young librarian in this House who has been groped by a Peer. Is she really expected to face him or his well-heeled lawyer? How do we create equality of arms when we have a Lord able to secure the professional services of a top QC and the young librarian can afford no such grandeur? Do we find some low-level lawyer and pay him or her out of the public purse when we are cutting legal aid so much to the bone that most people are having difficulty finding representation? Could we justify it? It was for all these reasons that Members of this House devised a system in keeping with most disciplinary procedures, using the inquisitorial method, not the traditional adversarial method. That means an independent assessor, arbitrator or commissioner investigating the complaint, sensitively testing its veracity, applying the same careful, probing attention to the account of the person complained of and then allowing each the opportunity to respond to the account of the other. The commissioner then reaches a conclusion on whether the complaint has probity.
I have sat in that role on a number of occasions. She has the advantage over any of us in that she has heard the live accounts of both parties. We invented this process without complaint at the time. I have no doubt that it could be improved and, as we go forward, I think it should be. Because of my own experience in these cases, sitting as the commissioner did, I suggest that it is better to sit with another assessor, as I usually do. I have always felt that I benefited from the help of others in evaluating credibility. The commissioner in this case has been subjected to wholly unjust criticism. She is a very experienced solicitor and we chose her carefully after a competitive process. She has dealt, in her 40 years’ experience, day in, day out, with the stuff of humankind, sitting as a judge in mental health matters. She is not an acquisitions and mergers lawyer, a commercial contracts lawyer, or someone dealing with fine points of law in the Supreme Court, but she has dealt, day in, day out, with the stuff of human frailty—human falls from grace and issues of dishonesty and honesty. We burdened her with the responsibility of judgment on our behalf and she deserves our respect, rather than what she was treated to.
I shall mention one area where I think she may have been wrong in law. She took the view that the allegations stood or fell together. While she may have felt handicapped by Lord Lester’s position that all the matters were fabricated, it was quite possible, for example, that there was inappropriate conduct and an unwelcome sexual pass but that the business of having a discussion about coming into this House, perhaps sitting on the Cross Benches—a discussion that many of us might have had with talented persons we thought might have contributed to this House—might have been misunderstood. The two may have become conflated, so to have felt that the allegations all stood or fell together seems to me a mistake. Evidence is not a seamless role: you can be absolutely truthful and right about one thing and mistaken about something else. The Privileges Committee, however, agreed with the commissioner’s decision and this House will have to make a decision too.
I suggest to the House that those who are friends of Lord Lester, like me, should not be voting. I will not vote. It would not be appropriate: I am conflicted between my friendship with Lord Lester and my desire to see greater justice for women. I believe that we still have not got the system for women right.
Before I finish, I want to say that I think the suspension of four years was too long, but that boat has sailed now that Lord Lester has resigned.
Lord Pannick
As a matter of information, it is not my intention to call a vote today.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
That is a source of relief to many of us. It would have been very inappropriate, as it was on the last occasion.
I feel very sad about this whole business. I am sad for the complainant. I am sad that the commissioner has had a tough time. I am sad for Lord Lester, his wife and his family. I want us to make a pledge to behave better. As men and women, we are trying to remake our world. We want an equal society. We will achieve that only when there is mutual respect between men and women. We can only do that together, as men and women. This House should see that we do that as we go forward. These processes have to be good enough for the job.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
I am grateful. I was present at the debate on 15 November. It was quite by accident—we had all been told that no Division of the House was intended. It was a Thursday afternoon, so Members of your Lordships’ House were leaving in numbers to catch trains and attend other commitments. The numbers were dwindling as the long speeches went on. However, I stayed to listen, because I felt increasingly dismayed by the tone and the imbalance of the debate that was unfolding. I thought it was no longer your Lordships’ House, where we debate matters of public interest, but that it had morphed into a court of law.
I listened to successive eminent QCs and other lawyers—people I respect enormously—stand up and say for how many years they had known Lord Lester. Collectively, those who spoke had probably known him for over 150 years. Someone said 40 years, another said 30, and another said that their families went on holidays together. I thought to myself that they would surely recuse themselves and not take part if there were a vote because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, they had a bit of an interest.
Before coming to your Lordships’ House, I served as a councillor in two London boroughs for a total of 16 years. In the code of conduct, according to the Nolan principles, it would be quite improper for any councillor to take part in a debate or vote if they had an interest. If it involved a member of your family or a close friend, you would recuse yourself. I chaired the overview and scrutiny committee for years. I would not have tolerated anyone taking part in a debate such as we witnessed on 15 November. Many Members are councillors or have been councillors. I shall read a sentence from the code of conduct, which is very clear:
“You must ask yourself whether a member of the public—if he or she knows all the facts—would think that your personal interest was so significant that it would probably affect your decision on the matter. If he or she would think your judgement would be affected, then you have a prejudicial interest”.
That is certainly what we witnessed on 15 November.
I did not intend to speak. I was not prepared and no one had sent me briefing notes. However, I felt that I ought to stand up and speak, and to address the imbalance. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, objected to some of the comments being made. I spoke at length, trying to balance the debate. We heard over 15 times about Lord Lester’s integrity and contribution—and rightly so—but we heard nothing about the complainant and her contribution to public life. Somehow that was not worthy of discussion. I felt it was important to put that on the table and add it to the debate. I am glad that I did.
I was not sure at the time—I thought I was maybe missing something and that this was how such reports were debated in your Lordships’ House—but I thought it important to introduce some balance as someone who, as I said at the time, experienced sexual harassment years ago. I can still remember it and its impact on my professional life at the time. I was glad that I had spoken. After the debate, when I went home, I opened my emails. I had many emails from members of staff, both here and outside, in other political parties, and from Members of your Lordships’ House who had heard about it, read Hansard and wrote to me saying, “Thank you for speaking up. I am so sorry I was not there. I fully intend to be there next time. We did not think it would go on so long and that there would be a Division”. I am glad that this is happening on a Monday, when your Lordships’ House is better attended by people who want to be involved in this debate and have their say.
Then I heard about the 74 members of staff here who wrote in alarm after reading what had transpired in that debate. I say to those women who wrote— 74 really respected members of our staff—that we hear them. I hear them. We hear them and we attach great respect and responsibility to their concerns. When you read that sexual harassment, bullying and groping are “far too common” in the House of Lords, what does that make you think? We really need to take women seriously. There is another generation now who will not tolerate that kind of behaviour—and nor should they. When they say that they want Parliament to be a safer environment to work in, surely we all want that. That is what this is about. We must listen to women and support them as well.
What is missing in these procedures is any support for the complainant; I am glad the Senior Deputy Speaker said that. She was cast adrift. It was all very well for Lord Lester’s eminent and well-connected friends to use their positions to write columns in the Times, to give interviews to the media and to speak in a very prominent way—they have that. The complainant did not have any such recourse or support apart from her immediate family and friends. That needs to be addressed and we need to consider what has happened in the other place following the Dame Laura Cox report on bullying and sexual harassment, because it is clear that Members of your Lordships’ House should not “mark our own homework”. It is time we had more independence in the way that these proceedings are dealt with.
I endorse the report and welcome its conclusions. I pay tribute to Ms Sanghera for her courage and resilience as she goes through a very difficult time. I hope she can draw a line under this and move forward with her life. I say to all other women who want to come forward: please do, because you will be listened to.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to express my concern at the procedures that this House has adopted with regard to the case of Lord Lester. In expressing these views, I make it plain that I am making no criticism of the commissioner. I accept that she was conducting her functions in accordance with the rules that were laid down by this House. My concerns lie with the procedures that we have put in place, rather than the manner in which they were exercised.
Lord Lester has resigned from this House, so this debate can be more general in content than was the case on 15 November, when his future was being discussed. I will make just two comments about Lord Lester. For the avoidance of doubt, he is in no sense a close friend of mine. First, I do not take his resignation as an admission of guilt. I can well understand that this process has been extremely distressing for him. He has said that these events have had a serious impact on his health and for that reason he wishes to draw a line under them. I can well understand that decision. It is a sufficient explanation for his resignation. Secondly, Lord Lester has made an important contribution to the law on human rights, to this House and in public life in general. That is an important legacy, which, notwithstanding the findings of this report, will always stand to his credit.
My concerns about the procedure that this House adopts are of long standing. I first expressed them in 1997 in the House of Commons when the case of Neil Hamilton was under consideration. Mr Hamilton was no friend of mine. His was not a popular case. But I formed the very firm conclusion that he had not been fairly handled by the parliamentary process then in place, which is substantially the same as our own.
I regret that I could not be here when this matter was debated on 15 November. I have, however, read the Hansard and the two reports produced by the committee. I am reassured to note that the views that I am about to express are very much in line with those expressed by, for example, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I am happy to associate myself with them.
I have never held high judicial office nor been a frequent advocate before the Supreme Court; I am but a jobbing barrister, but I have jobbed for 50 years on and off in both the criminal and the civil courts. I presently act as the legal assessor to the regulatory panel for the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Health and Care Professions Council, and until last year I helped to regulate the doctors as a legal assessor. For these regulatory panels—indeed, for all the statutory panels of which I am aware—Parliament has laid down by statutory instrument a precise procedure that has to be observed in order to ensure that the principles of natural justice and fairness are observed, and the appellate courts are rigorous in enforcing compliance with those requirements. Paragraph 15 of the further report states that,
“professional bodies have systems very similar to our own”.
That is not my experience. It is not correct in respect of professional bodies regulated by statute. In respect of them, the further report is wholly mistaken.
Very recently I was the legal assessor in a case that is relevant to the one we are considering. A registrant was alleged to have had sexual relations with a former patient during and after the provision of treatment. In accordance with the procedure laid down by Parliament, both parties were represented by counsel; the regulator’s lawyer opened the facts of the case and submitted to the panel the previously made statements of relevant witnesses; and the relevant witnesses were called and cross-examined. The registrant then gave evidence and was cross-examined. Closing submissions were then made. This was the procedure laid down by Parliament. It ensured that a fair process was observed. Had it not been followed, the appellate courts could have intervened.
Yes, the registrant had had sexual relations with the former patient, but these had commenced after the conclusion of the treatment and at the instigation of the patient. Moreover, the sexual relations were continuing, years after their commencement. These facts were not clearly apparent from the papers and emerged as a result of the process that I have just described. They were highly relevant to the ultimate conclusion.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Forgive me—I just do not see the relevance of this. I am sure there is almost no Peer in this House who does not think that our processes are inadequate and are going to be changed in future. I wonder if the noble Lord is trying to describe a system that he wants imposed here. I suggest that that would be better given in writing to the committee, rather than our hearing about other processes at this time.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, when you have a topic of this importance, touching as it does on the liberties of Members of this House, it is entirely right that we should take part in a public debate. To say to the contrary is to try to suppress argument, and I will not be party to that.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
I was not trying to suppress debate; I was trying to suppress planning for future processes, which is clearly going to be a committee job.
Viscount Hailsham
I hope that future processes will be informed by the nature of this debate. I hope that noble Lords will participate in considerable numbers, so that future processes can be properly formulated in accordance with the views of your Lordships.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord has complained about the process not being one of cross-examination. I do not know if he heard the noble Lord, Lord McFall, explain at the beginning of this debate why this is an inquisitorial, not a cross-examination process. In normal practice, victims of sexual harassment would not be cross-examined. He might have found it helpful if he—and others— had examined the transcripts of the commissioner’s inquisitorial process by which she questioned the complainant, Jasvinder Sanghera. Has he taken the opportunity to read them?
Viscount Hailsham
In the end, of course, it is a matter of opinion, but I practised at the bar for 50 years, and I believe very strongly that cross-examination is essential if you wish to find out the truth of matters.
Viscount Hailsham
The noble Lord may say it is wrong, but that is my opinion. It is based on a great deal of experience and is in accord with the recommendations.
Viscount Hailsham
If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I will proceed for the moment.
Viscount Hailsham
Very well. If it is the wish of the House I will certainly give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
Before the noble Lord proceeds with his argument, will he please answer the question put to him by the Leader of the Opposition?
Viscount Hailsham
Of course I believe that we need to look at our procedures and I am quite willing to consider the prospect of having an alternative method. I know, for example, that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
That is not the question to which I referred. The noble Viscount was asked by my noble friend whether he had read the transcripts of the evidence. There is a simple yes or no answer to that, I believe.
Viscount Hailsham
I have not read the entire transcript of the evidence but I have read the entirety of the first and second reports. Furthermore, I have read all the appendices to them.
I come back to the central issue. We have set in place an inquisitorial system and we have to ask ourselves a very serious question. Does it measure up to the requirement in the Guide to the Code of Conduct which requires us to address and respect the principles of natural justice and fairness? We need to ask ourselves if there is a good reason why we do not. I am bound to say that I cannot identify a plausible reason for this. Moreover, our procedures do not comply with the recommendations made to Parliament by committees appointed to consider our procedures.
It is true that some of the recommendations to which I am about to refer were made in different contexts, but I suggest that they set out principles of fairness and natural justice which are general in application. I simply do not accept the arguments for not applying those principles, which appear on page 18 of the further report. The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege reported in March 1999 and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, recited—
Is the noble Baroness trying to intervene?
Viscount Hailsham
I am so sorry; I did not mean to embarrass the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, recited the chief recommendations of the 1999 committee, which included a recommendation that the person alleged to have committed the wrong should have the opportunity to call witnesses at the appropriate time and to examine other witnesses.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I apologise to noble Lords for intervening again. Does he accept that that particular committee in 1999 was not looking at an internal disciplinary process but was in fact looking at how to deal with contempt of Parliament, which is a much more serious matter than an internal disciplinary issue?
Viscount Hailsham
It was laying down general principles of natural justice and fairness—that is the point. I believe that they have an application for all these proceedings. The recommendations in the 1999 report do not stand alone. Incidentally, the membership of that committee was extraordinarily distinguished. It included not only Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead but a former Lord Chief Justice, a former Attorney-General, a former Solicitor-General and two former Home Secretaries. Their views were not lightly to be disregarded.
In substance, they were repeated in the 1995 report on standards in public life. Again, they are substantially the same as those made in 1967 by the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege—again, a different context, but with principles of general application. That committee recommended that the rights granted to a person against whom a complaint is made should include the right to examine, cross-examine and re-examine witnesses and to make submissions to the Committee, including by an authorised representative. In the spirit of due diligence—
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
Does the noble Viscount accept that none of the cases he is speaking about mentions sexual misconduct—as paragraph 4 of appendix 2 on page 18 points out? Did he hear the intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, which absolutely emphasised that standards of conduct have moved on and that the context to which he refers is not the context in which women today expect to be treated—and to which I should say men would probably also ascribe? Does he accept that the House wishes to move on and that his peroration, although enormously important, could perhaps be put to the committee in writing—not because we are disinterested in what he has to say but because I am sure the Senior Deputy Speaker will accept that there might be a consultation where we will all have the ability to express our views on future conduct? We are now dealing with the report in hand and it would be expeditious if Members could keep their speeches relatively brief so that those of us who also want to intervene might have an opportunity to do so today.
Viscount Hailsham
No, let us be fair—that could very well apply to interventions. I think it is perfectly true that people’s understanding of the gravity of sexual misconduct has changed, but I very much hope that our understanding of the requirements of natural justice and fairness has not.
I recognise that Members of your Lordships’ House will say, “Thank God the lawyers have no role to play in these proceedings”. I get an echo of that from around me. My answer is that noble Lords would not say that if they had the misfortune to be a party to misconduct proceedings which could destroy their reputation.
When I started in law—
Viscount Hailsham
I recognise that lawyers are not the most popular members of the community. When I started in the law, it was held that it was better by far that guilty persons should go free rather than that an innocent person should be convicted. I believe that that remains the proper approach. We are now at serious risk of reversing that proposition. Perhaps society appears willing to tolerate the risk of the innocent being convicted so that all of those supposed guilty are caught in the net.
Our stated objective, as set out in the Guide to the Code of Conduct, is to ensure that allegations against Members are handled in a way that accords with the principles of natural justice and fairness. I do not believe that our present procedures do that. Indeed, they could get worse.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
I am not seeking to speak in this debate because I think this debate is serving no purpose whatever. The Senior Deputy Speaker has moved his Motion and we will not divide on it. As I understand it, there will be a review of the whole procedure, in which we will all be given the opportunity to make recommendations and suggestions. Why are we continuing with this—albeit erudite—completely irrelevant debate, when we have counterterrorism to deal with and then a Statement on Brexit?
Viscount Hailsham
It is never irrelevant to assert the importance of natural justice and fairness, and that is what I am doing. I am deeply concerned by the comment in the further report, which states that,
“cross-examination may be inappropriate for dealing with complaints of sexual harassment”.
On page 19 of the further report, it is stated that future changes in procedure for the investigation of sexual misconduct will recommend improvements aimed at providing better support for the complainant rather than for the Member. I welcome the former commitment but not the latter. We must be careful not to compensate for perceived historic injustices by creating future traps for the innocent. I believe that the procedures now in place expose Members of this House against whom allegations are made to the risk of serious injustice. We must be willing to look at those procedures again, with a view to ensuring that the principles of fairness and natural justice are respected.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, we should hear from the Cross Benches. I remind noble Lords that it is not customary to address the House for 20 minutes in an ordinary, non-time-limited debate. I believe shorter speeches would be welcomed by the House.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, sensing the growing impatience of the House, I will speak very briefly indeed. I want to make just one point that I think illustrates the illogicality of the House’s procedures and the way in which they were pursued in this case.
In our debate on 15 November, the noble Lord the Senior Deputy Speaker said:
“The House deliberately delegated active investigation and assessment to an independent commissioner; it would be wholly wrong for the House to seek now to substitute the commissioner’s conclusions with its own”—[Official Report, 15/11/18; col. 2028.].
I intervened to ask what, in that case, was the point of the House being given the opportunity to debate the report at all—or, I might have said, Lord Lester’s right of appeal to the Conduct and Privileges Committee? If there is to be no questioning of the outcome of the commissioner’s report, what is the point of these further proceedings? If we are to be given an opportunity to debate, the fact that the commissioner conscientiously followed the procedures laid down by the House—and I believe she did—should not prevent noble Lords from expressing their misgivings about the outcome, and many have been expressed and felt in all parts of the House.
I must acknowledge that I have a partial view since I have known Lord Lester for the past 40 years and do not know Ms Sanghera. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Hussein-Ece, that the moral is that it is impossible for Members of this House to be impartial when we are judging one of our own. We should agree on what we think are fair procedures and, as Dame Laura Cox has said, we should then make the process entirely independent of the House.
I applaud the movement which supports women in calling out bad behaviour by men. I want my granddaughters to be confident that such complaints will be taken seriously, but I also want my grandsons to know that they will be treated fairly and proportionately. We should not allow citizens of this country, of any gender or status in life, to be judged and punished without a rigorous and fair process. I put on record that I fear the House’s procedures, though well intentioned and conscientiously carried out, have not produced that result in this case.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I make three short points. First, I adopt in full the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in the first debate. He pointed out that we all promised to abide by this procedure, that the complainant in this case made a complaint in accordance with that procedure, nobody doubted that the procedure was followed and then, at the very end of the process, this House said, “Sorry, although your complaint has been justified by the terms of this procedure, we are changing the rules now”. It was not an attractive sight to watch. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
Secondly, the wrongness of the view that we have to have the orotund procedure described by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is obvious to practically anyone who has experience of disciplinary complaints. I include in the names of people to whom it is obvious the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Mackay of Clashfern—the people who are on our Committee for Privileges. The idea that there is some legal bar to having a process whereby we have an inquisitor who asks the questions of both sides, putting both sides of the case, is absolutely ridiculous. Do not judge that as lawyers: judge it as ordinary people.
My third point—and the thing that makes me most angry—is the hypocrisy of some noble Lords in citing Dame Laura Cox in support of their position. What Dame Laura Cox said was that members of staff in the House of Commons would never believe that they would get a fair hearing if Members of Parliament were involved in making the ultimate decision. What happened when this case came along is that someone who was in chambers with the person we were considering, someone who had been a friend of his for years and somebody who went on holiday with him for years all spoke on his behalf. Nobody spoke on the complainant’s behalf at all. The House then voted in favour of remitting it back to the committee. We should not regard the debate on 15 November as anything other than a sign of extreme hypocrisy.
The particular hypocrisy that I focus on is the fact that the reason it was remitted was because we focused on process and all of Lord Lester’s friends then voted to remit it, despite the fact that that was the most obvious breach of process. I urge the House, by what we say today, to give the fullest possible support to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, in what he has asked us to do.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven
I wish to address the House for a few minutes only on a subject to which many noble Lords have alluded, which is cross-examination. I cannot claim the 50 years of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, but I can claim 40 years at the Bar. During that time, I guess that I have spent hundreds of hours in adversarial proceedings cross-examining witnesses myself or watching co-defending counsel or opposing counsel cross-examining. That has been the greater part of my professional life.
Many noble Lords in this debate and in the debate last month have reminded the House of the famous dictum that cross-examination is the greatest legal engine for the discovery of truth ever invented. Of course it can be, and I have seen it so. I have seen liars unmasked, fraudsters exposed and terrorists cross-examined into confinement for decades. But my years of experience have also taught me that, like most aphorisms, this one is not able to paint the whole picture. Cross-examination can, of course, uncover the truth, but it can also obfuscate. It can advance a false prospectus, and it can intimidate. In adversarial proceedings, especially where freedom and forced confinement are in issue, its essential combativeness is indulged, but always and only under the watchful eye of a trained, professional judge.
I am sure that cross-examination can be one way to get at the truth, but I have never believed that it is the only way. In particular, I have never doubted that a diligent and fair inquiry by a competent tribunal, taking the necessary evidence, examining the relevant issues and asking the proper questions, is also capable of uncovering the truth. Tribunals proceed in this way every day, in this country and in other fair-trial jurisdictions around the world. The questions asked by a tribunal are, of course, a form of cross-examination in themselves, but cross-examination conducted in a more neutral, more objective manner, perhaps better suited to the inquisitorial style.
It is clear to me from the papers in Lord Lester’s case, which I have read, that the commissioner asked the complainant about all of the primary matters that might have been put in cross-examination: “Why did you go back to Lord Lester’s house?”, “Why did you dedicate the book to him in the way that you did?”, and so on. And the commissioner got her answers. It is true that these questions were asked in a gentler, more neutral way than might have been expected from a robust cross-examining lawyer, but there is no harm in that. Indeed, there are many situations in which this sort of low-key approach is more likely to get at what really happened, precisely because it occurs in a gentler, less aggressive environment. In my judgment, a disciplinary hearing, particularly where sensitive allegations of sexual misconduct are being aired, is certainly one of those situations.
Your Lordships could have mandated an adversarial disciplinary regime. I would not have recommended it, but you could have done so. This House could have mandated an inquisitorial system in which the participants were lawyered up, including for the purposes of cross-examination. Again, I would not have recommended this, but it could have been recommended. Even though both these things could have been done, they are emphatically not a pre-condition for a fair process. On the contrary, in my judgment, the process that your Lordships alighted upon was, for all the reasons that other noble Lords and the committee have set out, reasonable and fair.
Let me address one final thing on this subject, the standing of the commissioner. Lucy Scott-Moncrieff is a figure of the highest reputation in the legal world, a solicitor with a distinguished practice, a past president of the Law Society and a founding member of the Queen’s Counsel appointments panel. This House could hardly have selected someone more suited to the difficult task in hand, or more deserving of our trust. Your Lordships devolved to her the power to inquire fairly and thoroughly into the circumstances of Lord Lester’s case and to come to her reasonable conclusion on the evidence. That was her warrant. In my judgment, she discharged it faithfully.
Before I sit down, I wish to say one other thing briefly. During my five years as a public servant, as a prosecutor, my colleagues and I struggled endlessly against the sort of insidious stereotyping that bedevilled sex crime prosecutions. “Why didn’t she report it sooner? Why didn’t she distance herself more? Why was she wearing this? Why was she drinking that?”. In the end, we believed that we were making some progress, as judges repeatedly warned juries about the dangers of making stereotypical assumptions about the way that traumatised people react to the source of their trauma, warning them that they should not allow what may be little more than prejudice to cloud their judgment of the fact that an injustice has been done. Let us not find ourselves, in this House, moving backwards.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
My Lords, I was at the debate last month. I do not know if any of your noble Lordships have seen “Groundhog Day”, but this has similarities. We are going over the same ground again. I should like to make two points. First, I support the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. Its robust response to the November’s debate was superb. I was furious during the debate; I walked out at one point, because I was so angry with a Peer who was speaking. The report is fantastic and obviously I will vote for it if anyone decides to divide the House.
Secondly, I never thought these words would pass my lips, but the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is wrong. He was wrong to press the amendment last time and he would be wrong to push it today. He talks about fairness all the time. Was it fair to divide the House when there was no expectation of a vote and many Peers had gone home because the debate went on for much longer than expected and they had trains to catch? As I see it, fairness is not playing a full part in this process.
My last point is a question for the Senior Deputy Speaker. Lord Lester has resigned rather than been suspended. Does that mean that he maintains his rights and privileges of access here in this House, such as eating here and so on? I am sure that many of us will feel that natural justice would suggest that he should not.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I shall be brief. I find debates on the conduct of Members of this House and of Members of the House of Commons rather sad and distasteful affairs because we are being asked to sit in judgment on our friends and colleagues. That really cannot be right. History shows that there have been many more cases in the Commons than in this House, the most famous of which was the Marconi scandal, when three Liberal members of the Cabinet bought shares in the company knowing that it would be given a contract. Today they would be put in jail. Eventually a Select Committee of the House of Commons exempted them all; they were totally guiltless. In fact, one was made the Lord Chief Justice.
I agree strongly with the proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his speech. I do not object to the report of the committee, which has done a proper and correct job. But I also think we need an entirely new procedure and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that there should be a genuinely independent body operating under the conventions and practices of the legal system. Such a body should be drawn up and we should accept it, but let us know what we are accepting.
When it is recommended that a Member of this House be expelled, that should not come back to this House for approval. We then cease to be a court of justice and we become a parliamentary assembly. A parliamentary assembly has other feelings, emotions and loyalties, built on friendship and respect over the years. The public cannot possibly believe that we could act independently. By having an independent body, Members of this House must recognise that we would be restricting our powers in that position, which is absolutely necessary.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I want to intervene briefly, particularly to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, about cross-examination. I refer noble Lords to my relevant interests as set out in the register. I have spent a lot of time working with women who have suffered sexual exploitation and are vulnerable, but I am not saying that there are direct parallels. I am saying that there is no system that anyone believes is fully fair and objective in these cases. The most recent evidence shows that even when a judge has been aware of the advice and recommendations about how to conduct trials involving the cross-examination of women who have suffered sexual exploitation, the women’s experience leads them into mental health problems and other real difficulties.
I draw the attention of the House in particular to the recent safeguarding report from the Newcastle case called Operation Sanctuary. The person who conducted the inquiry was a barrister named David Spicer. Some lawyers in this House may know him; I am not in the legal profession so I know very few of them. He looked at the criminal court experience and court processes for supporting the victims and survivors of sexual exploitation. He said that a dedicated trial judge was appointed to preside over all the trials in Newcastle. She took care to ensure that proper processes were followed and that there was no cross-examination that went beyond what is permitted. All the complainants had access to social care and mental health professionals. However, David Spicer also reported that all the victims who gave evidence and contributed to his review complained about how they were treated in cross-examination—about the pressure, the aggressive questions about their backgrounds and motives, along with their personal details, the records of which they were previously unaware of. They told him that their long-term mental health had been badly affected, and I can testify to that, because the organisation I chaired, Changing Lives, worked with them before the trial, to get them there, and continues to work with them.
There is no perfect process. In his recommendations, David Spicer asks the Government to re-examine this issue, so that we are better able to talk about a fair process in cases of sexual exploitation. The courts do not get it right, so is it any wonder that people continue to try to find ways for this House to do it better? We should not kid ourselves that we will get a perfect process. Many women have experienced different types of sexual exploitation from what we are talking about in this case. They will suffer for years to come, and we have not yet found a fair process.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I suggest we hear from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and then my noble friend Lady Shackleton.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I have cut out almost everything I was going to say, but I wish to say something about the future. I do not apologise for this, as I wrote to the chairman of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct three weeks ago, and have not yet had a reply. As a result, I need to say it here, in case it is not taken seriously.
The committee may, and I say this respectfully, have underestimated the difficulty of making a decision on serious issues of credibility in cases where the parties give diametrically opposing accounts of what happened and what was said. I do not believe, however, that it is necessary to have an adversarial system, so I disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. The current process, put in place by the Committee for Privileges and Conduct of this House, is entirely right. In most cases—for instance, the recent cases of financial misconduct—it is entirely appropriate for the commissioner to deal with the case by herself. There will be other types of case that will be equally appropriate for the commissioner. I have enormous respect for her—I know her well, and chaired the QC panel, of which she was an important member.
When I wrote to the chairman, I suggested that in future cases with serious conflicts of interest, where the credibility of the parties and witnesses is disputed, the commissioner would be helped by involving an experienced QC, who would ask the questions. Where appropriate, and tactfully—certainly in relation to the complainant—the QC could ask sufficient questions to test the case against the respondent, as well as cross-examine the witnesses and the respondent to see how the case and the defence stand up. I am not criticising Jasvinder Sanghera—I know her well, and admire the work she does—and did not criticise her in my last speech. The House must recognise that where serious allegations are denied, they will arise again in relation to Members of this House. This will not be the only case, and we must be ready to deal with future cases with the 21st century method of due process and natural justice.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia
My Lords, I declare my interest: I am not a friend of Lord Lester. I sat on the same Select Committee as him. I like every member of my committee, and I am very blessed to be on such a nice committee. In similar circumstances, I would hope that this House regards our duties as overriding our friendships. It is insidious to suggest that Members of this House would put their friendships above their duties to the House, and it is offensive to suggest that people would vote in the same way, as in the suggestions of “Lester’s mafia” plotting against the House. I have spoken to many people in this House; they have told me that, despite the fact that this is about Lord Lester, they feel that there is something not right about the report.
The other misconception is that those who voted against the Privileges Committee, which investigated this case, were not suggesting that Lord Lester was innocent but that this should be looked at again. That was not on the agenda and not what we were voting for. On reading the second report, I was most concerned by appendix 1. We are served by a number of unbelievably loyal and genuine staff, from the cleaners to the restaurant staff to the doorkeepers to the librarians. No wonder they expressed dismay when noble and learned Lords such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, speak up against the committee’s conclusions. There is obviously a problem if judges and other people have differing views on both the process and the result.
Looking forward, I beg the committee to concoct a scheme that gives some sort of certainty, not just to women. I identify with the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, because I have suffered in the way she suggested, but that does not mean that all men are guilty. Men are entitled to just as much of a fair trial as us women, but women must not be precluded from bringing forward their complaints. There must be a fair process whereby the men feel as protected as the women who accuse them, particularly in the current #MeToo environment.
I finish by saying that I am still not satisfied about Lord Lester’s guilt, particularly because the commissioner did not investigate each allegation separately but took them as they fell, as was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I read David Perry QC’s report; he read all the appendices and transcripts and came to the complete opposite view. In circumstances where two, or many, rational people reach opposing views, surely it is for this self-regulating House to come up with a solution that serves everybody fairly going forward.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and then from—
Lord McNally
My Lords, I would gladly have given way, but we will both get in, from what I gather from the mood of the House.
I want to clarify that I have no Marconi shares. As I have explained to the House, I once met a very distinguished American lawyer. When I explained that I was not a lawyer, he said, “Then I’ll speak very slowly”.
All I want to say is that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McFall, reads the transcript of his opening speech and then regrets it and thinks again—
Lord McNally
Because what the noble Lord said in his peroration was that what will come back in January will not be a new system but tweaks to the existing one. We will read Hansard tomorrow and see whether it has been satisfied. Some 170 people voted, so around 200 people must have been there for that debate last Thursday. It would have helped if the noble Lord, Lord McFall, had not announced within 24 hours he would overturn that decision and apologise to the claimant. That does not sound like listening to this House.
If anything has come out of this debate, it is the conclusion that has come through time and time again: this process is not satisfactory for what it is meant to do. I make the point again. I was the leader of the Liberal Democrats and part of the leaders’ committee that appointed the Eames committee. There is no question that the Eames committee code of conduct aimed to deal with sexual harassment—it was not discussed.
The idea that “The rules are the rules, and this is what we have done” ignores one of the most important things in the first report: an unknown journalist sounded out the officers of the House some time before this complaint was made, and got the ambiguous reply that it was probably right to make a complaint in this way, but the House would probably need to update its procedures on sexual harassment. This is the problem. Everybody who says we should not retry the case then starts mentioning it, but the truth is this: if the Eames committee code of conduct is fit for purpose, why was it not used within three years of the alleged offence? Why did the complainant wait for another seven years?
Lord McNally
Wait a minute. Read what she says. Why did she wait another seven years? She did so for political reasons, not for trauma. It is not outrageous.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Is it appropriate to undermine somebody who does not have a chance to answer? I invite the noble Lord to stop this now.
Lord McNally
I will not take any advice from the noble and learned Lord. He has already talked about hypocrisy; I bow to his expertise in that.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
You are not just embarrassing yourself; you are embarrassing all of us.
Lord McNally
All trials are trials for one’s life; all sentences are sentences of death. We are talking about a man who, until this case, was one of the giants of civil liberties, of sexual liberties—
Lord McNally
No, I will not give way. Give me two minutes and I will stop.
There was no questioning for 11 years. By ignoring the four-year limit and taking an 11 year-old case, we have left ourselves with a very low threshold for future complaints. I beg the noble Lord, Lord McFall, and the establishment of this place to think hard. In these debates, there has been a real concern that handling these matters is beyond the competence of this Chamber. I strongly support us giving some constructive ideas about how these can be handled with real fairness.
Every time you try to make these points, certain people immediately accuse you. I have every reason for wanting to see in place a law and codes of conduct that protect young women. I will not give way to anyone in the idea that that is not my intention. But we do not do so by overreacting to any question that the procedure could have been faulty or by not being willing to listen to very real concerns that this needs a much more fundamental review and change than was offered in the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord McFall.
Baroness Young of Hornsey
My Lords, wow! I cannot tell your Lordships how sad it is for me to have to follow the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I have been a great admirer of his work. We have worked together on a number of issues relating to the criminal justice system. I bow to his knowledge and expertise in that area, particularly his stewardship of the Youth Justice Board. But I find his comments completely out of order and totally inappropriate. They demean the value of the debate we have had this afternoon precisely because they were not at all objective. They had no real sense of moving the debate forward. Indeed, he misunderstood, misinterpreted or misheard—or maybe the noble Lord, Lord McFall, miscommunicated—the fact that we all agree that these procedures need changing. Indeed, the House’s reluctance to change over the years has been one of the major problems in this place.
I will now say what I intended say. I declare an interest as a member of the steering group tasked with implementing the recommendations of the working party set up to address bullying and sexual misconduct, convened by the leader of the other place. As such, I had access to the views of all key stakeholders in this very important issue: Commons staff, Members of both Houses, trade union representatives and so on. As somebody has already said, we will have to deal with this issue time and again. Anybody who thinks that it does not happen here is hugely mistaken.
One of the critical issues raised during that series of discussions and consultations was historical cases. There is plenty of literature that describes why people take so long to come forward—not just women, but men too. I met a man last week at a conference on sports and human rights who had suffered appallingly at the age of 15 and only now felt able to come out and talk about it. That is what happens, for various reasons. I cannot put myself inside his head and tell noble Lords why, just as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, cannot put himself inside anybody else’s head and say why this is the case, but it happens. It is a regular pattern. The damage caused by these incidents and events has a ripple effect on not just the individual but their friends, family and professional contacts.
I do not want to rehearse previous arguments made on either 15 November or today because I am sure the House is running out of patience, but I support the remarks made by other noble Lords too numerous to mention that drew attention to the inequity embedded in this case. Again, I speak not as a specific friend of Lord Lester—again, I worked with him—and I do not know the complainant. But noble Lords will be aware that the original working party inquiry that covered both Houses, of which my noble and learned friend Lord Hope was a member, and the subsequent report by Dame Laura Cox were established by Parliament as a result of a steady flow of disturbing reports of bullying and harassment across all levels of staff and Members. While I hope that the severity and quantity of similar problems in this House will not be as great as it appears to have been in the House of Commons, I fear that some noble Lords may be shocked by the outcome of the recently commissioned independent inquiry.
I am trying to move the debate on a bit from where we are now. I say this because a number of noble Lords have expressed surprise at the idea that anything so awful could possibly have happened to somebody was, or involved anybody who was, their friend. It happens. Interestingly, others—maybe from different publics than those that other noble Lords have access to—have spoken to me of a range of examples of misconduct in this House. This House has prided itself on its integrity and belief in a code of honour. Sadly, that is just not enough now. Somebody mentioned the 21st century. I wish we could get that far forward in this House on some of these issues. We are often too slow to acknowledge changes that have happened in society, which are not being reflected in this House. The experiences some of us have had here give testament to that. I know because once people realised that I was on the committee, they would come to me with examples of things that had happened to them or that they had witnessed or heard about.
Part of our problem is that privilege and power have become normalised. We think we are owed the privilege and power that we have within this House. I do not believe that to be healthy, because in doing so we distance ourselves from the everyday experiences of most people in our society, which is highly problematic.
I am not going to go over the comments made on 15 November, but that debate reiterated for me that the concept of natural justice must be applied to everybody equally, not just to friends or to a privileged few with access to platforms from which they can continuously express their views.
Abuse is invariably about asymmetrical power relations. Sadly, therefore, it was no surprise to me that the 74 members of staff sent that letter to the Privileges and Conduct Committee. That letter was from our colleagues—members of staff whom we work with here in this House—and they pointed in no uncertain terms the chilling effect of the thrust of that debate and the result of the Division. Indeed, others outside of this Palace of Westminster pondered the wider implications, including what happens in our courts when a criminal sexual offence has been committed and someone comes forward with an historic complaint.
The way we are set up here does not help. Those of us who have researchers and assistants, travel abroad and hold one-to-one meetings must ensure that we understand and adhere to appropriate standards of behaviour. Part of the problem is that there is no way of knowing definitively who does work alongside House of Lords staff and Members. This poses a significant risk, particularly to young people coming in, who may have little or no knowledge of the world of work, how power works and what kind of behaviour in this unique institution is and is not acceptable.
When the time comes, I hope noble Lords will embrace new procedures; I shall be interested to see how that debate goes. I hope those new procedures will be adopted as the basis, at least, for a reworked code of practice that brings this House’s way of dealing with misconduct up to date and into alignment with recently adopted procedures in the House of Commons. That is sorely needed to restore faith all round.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, as noble Baroness the Leader of the House said at the start of this debate, I had not intended to intervene, and I strongly support the committee’s report. However, I must publicly dissociate myself from some of the comments made, particularly, I am afraid, by my noble friend—my old friend—Lord McNally. I strongly support the complainant and would not wish her to believe that the sentiment of the House is anything other than to give her support at this time, rather than criticism.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I sense the mood of the House is that we should be drawing the debate to a close. I appreciate that it probably was not easy for the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to make those comments; I think the House is grateful that he did.
As my noble friend Lady Kennedy said, this is not a court of law. We are dealing with an internal disciplinary procedure of your Lordships’ House. I would like to place on record, and I hope the House will concur with me, our thanks and appreciation, to the commissioner for undertaking what has been a long and detailed inquiry, to the sub-committee that first looked at this and said it was appropriate that the committee address the issues—I know from my own work the amount of time and effort they have taken to read the reports and to look at the information—and to the Senior Deputy Speaker. I hope not one iota of anything he said at the Dispatch Box today—which I strongly support—will be retracted.
In the previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other noble Lords, raised issues of process. Contrary to his disappointing assertions that they were ignored by the committee, they clearly were not. The House voted by 78 to 101 that the commissioner had failed to comply with paragraph 21 of the Code of Conduct, which requires her to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness, but gave no direction on what should happen next, other than that it should be remitted to the committee and it was for the committee to look at the matter. The committee did, at length and in full, and it has produced a further report, which endorsed our previous recommendation after further and detailed consideration, and which it asks your Lordships’ House to consider and accept today. These issues were re-examined by the committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, said that the committee investigated. No, it did not; it was an independent investigation by the commissioner appointed by this House.
I was extremely disappointed by the comments made about the qualifications and experience of the commissioner and I am glad that they have been redressed today. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that he considered such criticism of the commissioner appropriate. To criticise her qualifications and experience is not appropriate. I was on her appointment panel, as was the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If people have concerns about those aspects, they should criticise the noble Lord and me, who continue to have full confidence in the commissioner and her work.
The debate of 15 November has been given extensive consideration today, but it went way beyond what many of us considered appropriate or necessary for the matter being discussed. As the noble Lord, Lord McFall, said, Lord Lester was referred to several times during it. Lord Lester has an enviable professional reputation and his work is held in high regard, as was rightly referred to in the debate. However, the complainant, Jasvinder Sanghera, also has an excellent and impressive professional reputation, but that was not acknowledged and it must be today.
I want to reflect on two or three things that have been said in your Lordships’ House today. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws correctly identified the problems of sitting in judgment on friends and colleagues. That is why we have a process of independent, thorough investigation by the commissioner. We have also to consider our role in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who criticised the commissioner’s report, has not only been a personal friend of Lord Lester—we all understand the pressures that brings—but acted as judge and jury on the decision, was a lobbyist for him, wrote newspaper articles putting the case for him and was an advocate for him in this House. There is an issue about process and procedure that has to be questioned: being judge, jury, advocate and lobbyist for an individual who is a friend and a Member of your Lordships’ House does not seem appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, in a somewhat embarrassing speech, talked about the wrong process. What else was the complainant to do? How else is somebody supposed to make a complaint? If the process is not perfect, are they to stand back and not make a complaint? It is right that people should feel that they can come to your Lordships’ House and make a complaint when appropriate. Comments have been made both today and previously about how women who have been the victims of harassment or abuse should behave. There is no blueprint that says, “If this has happened to you, this is how you must behave”. The commissioner has used a process in her investigation. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to a book being signed affectionately. Women across this House will tell you that such behaviour is not abnormal where people feel uncomfortable after somebody has harassed them or behaved inappropriately towards them but go on to have a professional relationship with them, particularly if it is in public. Others said, “I’ve never heard anything like this before”. Sometimes our friends behave inappropriately. That is exactly why professional investigators are required; it is not a decision just of your Lordships’ House.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, referred to the 1999 committee on parliamentary privilege. I said in my intervention on him that the report was on a matter relating to the contempt of Parliament, which is an imprisonable offence. That is why the standard of investigation should be higher than for an internal disciplinary matter.
We came back to the cross-examination or inquisitorial process. The noble Viscount eventually had to admit that he had not read all the transcripts, I think he said. My understanding is that only two Members of your Lordships’ House asked to see the transcripts at all. The transcripts, which members of the committee and I have read, clearly indicate an inquisitorial process by the commissioner to do justice to the evidence and test the information given to her.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, it falls to me to respond briefly to the debate. At the outset, I acknowledge how difficult this topic is for all of us. It is not a subject that any of us would wish to be debating today or any day. I shall pick up a number of points. First, yes, I received the email from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Perhaps it was translated into an email as well, but I read it. In fact, I read it again in the Times of 13 December and I read the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, of 15 December. Then, this morning at 5.30 am, I read the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. What does that indicate? It indicates that there is a lively debate. The point that the noble and learned Baroness is making, on procedure, is for the future, and she can be assured that it will be taken on board.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about access rights for Lord Lester. That is a matter not for the Privileges and Conduct Committee but for the House of Lords Commission, which will meet on Wednesday.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, asked about procedures. The role of the House is to satisfy itself that its own procedures are set down in the code and the guidance to be followed. Those procedures were established in 2009 in the Leader’s Group by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. Since then, I believe that there have been seven revisions and, as has been mentioned, when there is a general election we have to sign up to that code. So since 2009 there have been 10 opportunities for people to comment on the procedures. Given the highlighting of the debate here, I urge Members to put their comments in, because the Privileges and Conduct Committee will be looking at the independent complaints and grievance procedure recommendations in the new year.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
Sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but is it not the point of the Motion today to approve the report on Lord Lester? It is not about future procedure.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
There are two issues here. There is a point about future procedure and shall deal with that. Separately, there is the Motion to approve the P&C report today, which I hope people will agree to. Those two issues are very separate.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Can the noble Lord confirm that it will be a comprehensive review and reassure the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that it will not just be a tweaking?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Absolutely, it will be a comprehensive review. By the way, I give a general invitation to every Member here to write to us with their views on that. I look forward to an avalanche of comments in the next month or so. Looking at this issue, it will most definitely be a comprehensive review.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will the noble Lord explain whether other complaints presently on the table against Peers in this House will be determined according to the same rules as the report before the House today?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
I have no knowledge of any complaints against other Peers in this House. I make that clear.
I mentioned the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who established a concept of personal honour. That concept is central to this debate. In elaborating on that, he mentioned words such as selflessness, accountability, integrity, openness, objectivity and honesty.
To conclude, we are dealing with two individuals who are both eminent and respected in their fields, as I said previously. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said on 15 November,
“the most severe burden that anyone has to carry is adjudicating upon the conduct of our fellow citizens”.—[Official Report, 15/11/18; col. 2017.]
I know from Members’ comments to me that they have found this painful and distressing on occasion. The Independent Commissioner for Standards, the sub- committee and the Committee for Privileges and Conduct carried out their difficult task dutifully. The commissioner, an experienced lawyer and investigator, as well as a mental health tribunal judge, carried out her task precisely as laid down by the code and the guide that the House designed and agreed to. Each Member signs up to the code and the guide at the start of each Parliament. We must remember that, unlike the House, the commissioner had the unique advantage of seeing, interviewing and assessing the complainant and Lord Lester.
This is the redacted material, which every Member was invited to read before the first meeting. No one took up that invitation. We reiterated the invitation and two individuals have taken it up. I know that one Member has contacted the office to say that they would like to take it up on Wednesday. I invite all other Members to come along after this if they wish to see this material, because it is detailed, comprehensive and fair to both parties. That invitation is open.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
I was one of the two Members who asked to see the material. The point that has not been made today is that the material contains the contemporaneous witness accounts of what happened in Lord Lester’s house. I found that evidence absolutely overwhelming and persuasive. I join the noble Lord in inviting other Members to read it as well.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
The noble Lord said that there were six contemporaneous witnesses. We invite Members to read their accounts.
In her own words,
“on the basis of the strong and cogent evidence of the complainant and her witnesses”,
the commissioner found that Jasvinder Sanghera was a victim of sexual harassment and that Lord Lester was guilty of a grave abuse of power. The Committee for Privileges and Conduct reviewed and endorsed this view. We ask the House to do the same. I hope the House will now agree to this report.
Motion agreed.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill
Monday 17th December 2018
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 View all Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 142-II Second marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (13 Dec 2018)
18:14 - Division on Amendment 32 - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 196 - Amendment 32 agreed.
Lord Stunell
“( ) After subsection (3) insert— “(3A) The Secretary of State must ensure the collection and annual release of statistics on—(a) the religion, and(b) the ethnicity,of identified individuals referred under subsection (2).””
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I tabled Amendment 31 because of the serious concerns expressed on all sides about the impact of the Prevent strategy on minority—particularly Muslim—communities. The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, has been among the most eloquent in putting that view to the House. This has emphasised the fact that Prevent risks becoming counterproductive rather than counterterrorist. It is really important for the House to consider that critique and to respond to it and make sure that the legislation does as well.
There are concerns from within some of those communities themselves. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, spoke about that very eloquently. I have been approached by a number of organisations which work in the field of deradicalisation and minimising radical risks for those in minority communities; they have passed on their concerns as well. There are also concerns from the professional associations which represent some of those professionals who are required to be reporters and are drawn into the Prevent strategy. A senior clinician from my own area of Stockport has made the point that it undermines patients’ trust in the conversations they might have with their GP because they fear they might be reported. The professional teaching associations have some of the same concerns about the burden being placed on schools to deliver the Prevent strategy.
The fact is that there is a cost. It is our job to ask: is it worth it? Is the value worth the cost? We need to look at what measures Prevent is subject to. How is Prevent evaluated? How does anybody decide that it is effective? Can it be shown that unconscious bias is not present when people are selected for potential referral? In view of the debate we have just had, that question of unconscious bias might need to be nearer the top of our minds than we might otherwise have thought. Can the Minister really expect to get away with the argument that she deployed last time round that it was in part justified because there was a valuable by-catch, as it were, of other people who, although not being radicalised or in need of Channel support, in fact showed other, non-terrorist vulnerabilities? The question, then, is: how do we make Prevent more transparent? How can we make it so that, on the one hand, those who have fears and criticisms about it can be satisfied and, on the other, the Government can satisfy themselves that they are not in the same position that they were a few years ago about stop and search, where they actually did not know the answer to the criticism that was being levelled at police services?
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, first, I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the existence of the Prevent oversight board, which last met a few days ago. It has not been meeting as often as it should, but I heard the Home Secretary personally giving an undertaking that it would meet again in six months’ time. The board was established during the coalition Government, and was accepted by the coalition Government, in response to the review that I conducted —on behalf of the coalition Government—of the Prevent strand of counterterrorism policy. Its purpose was to do exactly the sorts of things set out in this amendment, which I regard as unnecessary.
Secondly, the noble Lord referred, in what I suppose was an argumentum ad maiorem, to the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. I note with regret that she is not here in her place; indeed, as I recall, she has not been in her place for any part of the Committee or Report stages of the Bill. I draw his attention to the fact that she is not a unifying force in dealing with extremism and Prevent. She has accused the excellent new counter- extremism commissioner, Sara Khan, of being,
“neither connected to, nor listened to, nor respected by, nor trusted by, nor considered independent by most British Muslims—so”,
the extremism commission,
“has no ability to influence and affect change in its ‘target audience’”,
despite Ms Khan’s efforts to deal with the problem of attaining a range for a definition of extremism. I say to the noble Baroness, who I now see approaching the Chamber for the first time in these Committee and Report debates, that I regret that she takes a somewhat monolithic view of Islam in this country, whereas Islam is—if I can use my Welsh experience from being a Member of the other place—as diverse as Christianity in Wales, which is about as diverse as it comes.
With great respect to the noble Lord, if he is to criticise Prevent then he should be specific about which of its programmes he is criticising. I have spent a great deal of time watching Prevent; going to programmes in its field, listening to those who conduct them and talking to people in the communities in which they operate. I have observed that Prevent is, on the whole, regarded pretty positively, as achieving a great deal. Above all, it achieves the deradicalisation of children who might otherwise spend most of their lives in prison if they were to fulfil the ideation which led them into Prevent.
I know that there are figures, which I accept completely, showing that many—even the majority—of those who are referred into Prevent are not, in the end, shown to be appropriate for its programmes. But what do the police do? They stop people in the street; they arrest them; they question them in an aggressive way; and they are often wrong in their suspicions. Finding the people who commit offences involves talking to an awful lot of other people. Prevent actually does achieve considerable success in finding those young people who are being radicalised, often in private, in their rooms, over the internet—a very difficult area in which to operate.
It is unfair to criticise Prevent in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, did. It has been suggested that it could be replaced by something else, but that would look awfully like Prevent, whatever you called it. If you called it “Cuddles” it would still receive exactly the criticisms which are made of it as Prevent. It would achieve nothing. If we abandoned Prevent, then terrorist acts which we have been able to avoid as a result of that policy would happen. I admit I played a part in it, so I may be somewhat biased towards it. Noble Lords have been talking about bias this afternoon and I accept the accusation of apparent bias as a possibility. However, I believe that Prevent has demonstrated that it has been successful, since it was adopted by the Government in which the noble Lord was a Minister. If it had not been, why did they not abandon it before 2015?
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I have been involved in the Prevent programme since 2007. It is like the curate’s egg: some parts of it have been successful, some not. It is almost impossible to imagine that we would not have had such a programme. It was absolutely necessary to do it because, in the final analysis, terrorism is a generational thing and the only way to defeat it is by attacking those areas of belief and behaviour. It is, therefore, probably the most important strand, but we found it the most difficult one and there is no doubt that some areas of it failed and did not do well. We therefore need to improve it. The amendment is unnecessary because, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, if the Prevent oversight board is doing its job it should do these things. However, we need to look at how we can make Prevent better.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that Muslim communities in this country are extremely diverse. They come from many different countries and backgrounds. Within them, there are many points of view, theological opinions and so on. Having said that, I can give some indirect evidence on this matter. I am a trustee of an English charity which, for the last 12 to 13 years, has been working with Muslim communities up and down this country. It has helped them to build bridges with all levels of authority, from local authorities up to the Home Office. It has tried to give them greater self-confidence in dealing with authority. However, the evidence is that, over this period, the Prevent programme has made relationships much more difficult. I think that it is a question of perception. The existence of the programme and the way in which it has been administered have led many Muslims to feel that they are being discriminated against and that the weight of government is falling on them disproportionately.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
Does the noble Lord agree that it would possibly be better to talk about this in the next amendment? This amendment is about transparency of data. If he wants to talk about it now, I am perfectly happy to hear what he has to say, but it is actually the subject of the next amendment.
Lord Hylton
I will conclude what I was saying. I believe that this amendment is modest and necessary and will be helpful. It will provide statistics with which future judgments can be made, so I support it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in Committee and again today on Report. As he told the House previously, in 2016-17, 6,093 people were referred to the process, but only 6% of them were referred to a Channel programme. The ethnicity and religion of those who are referred are missing from the data. That omission denies the Minister, officials and others important and valuable data.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, was clear in Committee that the Government wholeheartedly agreed with the intent of the amendment, but she was not convinced that it was needed to achieve the intention. When she responds, will she update the House on the work that is being done by the Home Office chief statistician, who, we are told, is looking at this issue?
To conclude, I support the aims of the amendment. It will provide valuable information for the Government. It would be welcome if the Minister could update the House on whether what has been asked for could be done through other means.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. I will be happy to update the House on some of the work that is going on. The Government agree wholeheartedly with the principle that activities under the Prevent strategy are made as transparent as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned the Prevent oversight board. I am pleased to hear that it met just the other day. However, there is great interest in the operation of the Channel programme, and the publication of statistics on it has already added to that transparency, dispelled some of the myths which surrounded its operation, and provided useful substance to debates in this House. We have so far published data on referrals to Prevent, and the progress through the Channel system of those referrals, covering in detail 2015-16 and 2016-17 and, in lesser detail, the previous years from April 2012. The latest set of statistics, covering 2017-18, was published last week.
The published data covers the numbers at different stages of the process from initial referral, through discussion at Channel panel, to the provision of support. It includes, among other things, the type of extremism which led to the referral; the age, gender and regional location of the person referred, and the sector which made the referral. It also looks at how successful the programme is.
The data is still at a relatively early stage in its development and is therefore classed as experimental statistics. Feedback from users is very important as the dataset develops, and it is clear from noble Lords’ comments that additional categories of data, such as the religion and ethnicity of those who are referred—as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said—would be a welcome addition to the current set. As I indicated in Committee, working through the Home Office chief statistician, we would be happy to explore including this data in future publications. At this stage, that would depend on the quality and completeness of the data.
I mentioned in Committee that currently at least half of the records supplied to the Home Office do not include ethnicity or religion. The publication of such variables could therefore be misleading at this stage. There will clearly be more work which officials can do to ensure that this data is captured and recorded in an accurate and nationally consistent manner.
I return briefly to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in Committee. He was interested in whether referrals made by the police were more or less likely than others to end up being discussed on Channel panels and offered support. I promised at the time to look at the underlying data to see if such an analysis were possible, and I am happy to confirm what my noble friend Lady Barran said on that occasion—that this data already forms part of the published data set and can be found in accompanying tables available on the GOV.UK website.
On the understanding that the Home Office chief statistician is looking at the issue raised in this amendment, I hope the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw it.
Lord Stunell
I thank the Minister and other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am glad that neither she nor I believe that Prevent is beyond improvement after the magic year of 2015, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, imputed to me. I am very grateful for her words of encouragement. The key issue here is the perception referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the widespread misapprehension, as the Government see it, by the minority community of what Prevent is and does. The best way to overcome that is to have more transparency and information. I welcome what the Minister has said today and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“(8) The Secretary of State must, within the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, make arrangements for an independent review and report on the Government strategy for supporting people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism.(9) The report and any recommendations of the review under subsection (8) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament within the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(10) The laying of the report and recommendations under subsection (9) must be accompanied by a statement by the Secretary of State responding to each recommendation made as part of the independent review.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, this is an issue that we debated in Committee when an independent review of Prevent was called for. The Prevent programme introduced by the Labour Government in 2003 has undoubtedly done much valuable work. My moving of this amendment should in no way be seen as not recognising that fact. As when we last debated this issue, I pay tribute to all those who work to keep us safe, to divert people away from a life of terrorism and to support people who contribute positively to the community. We should all recognise the good work that has been done. I am not aware of any specific problems that give rise to concern, but that does not in itself negate the fact that it is good practice to review matters.
The amendment does not specify who should carry out the review. I would be happy for it to be placed under the remit of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. It seems preferable to do that rather than appoint another person to carry out the review. Prevent has not been the subject of an independent review; I very much believe that the programme would benefit from that sort of oversight.
Clearly, questions have been raised over the programme’s operation and effectiveness. Some are justified, but other criticisms have been stirred up deliberately to undermine the programme. I see my amendment calling for review not as seeking to undermine the good work that has been done but as a sound, sensible, careful look at an area of policy and a programme that deals with matters of the utmost concern to the country as a whole and to individual communities.
In addition to the review, my amendment calls for a report to be laid before Parliament within 18 months of the Bill becoming an Act, and for the Secretary of State to produce a statement to accompany the report. I beg to move.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, we should have pride in the achievements of the many excellent people who work locally in Prevent, and in the increased transparency that has been a notable feature of the past few years. I have in mind not only the helpful publication of statistics but recent initiatives such as the staging in the West Midlands of simulated Channel panel meetings through which outsiders have been brought in to witness the process of decision-making.
As the noble Lord, Lord West, has indicated, triumphalism about the successes of Prevent would be quite out of place. In its report last month, the Intelligence and Security Committee noted that the failure to pick up attack planning by the Parsons Green tube bomber, Ahmed Hassan, despite him having been an active Channel case, highlighted what the committee called,
“deep-rooted issues in the administration”,
of Prevent. Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu described Prevent in an interview this February, when he was senior national co-ordinator for counterterrorism, as “hugely controversial”. He went on to say:
“Prevent, at the moment, is owned by the Government, but I think it should be outside central government altogether ... Rather than the Government handing over a sum of money and then it becoming state-sponsored with accusations of demonising communities, it should be locally generated. We have gotten all of that messaging the wrong way around, it should be grassroots up”.
I mention this to encourage noble Lords to avoid complacency on this subject and because the Minister quite rightly expressed in Committee her strong respect for Mr Basu’s views. Perhaps it shows that the best of us are not monolithic in our views; with great respect to my noble friend Lord Carlile, that is true also of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, whose recent book is both nuanced and constructive in its approach.
The legitimate questions raised by Mr Basu could be multiplied: how should Prevent relate to other safeguarding mechanisms on the one hand and to the Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy on the other? How robust are the mechanisms for measuring success? To what extent should concerns derived from Prevent contacts be shared with counterterrorism police and others? Decisions as to the future direction of Prevent are of course for Ministers. It was encouraging to hear from my noble friend Lord Carlile that the Prevent oversight board might be showing signs of renewed life. But independent review of the operation of Prevent by a security-cleared person, based on the widest possible engagement with those affected, could help to inform those decisions. It could also provide much-needed public reassurance about an initiative which is so hotly debated that it has been described as “5% of the budget and 85% of the conversation”.
As Mr Basu said in February:
“Government will not thank me for saying this, but an independent reviewer of Prevent … would be a healthy thing”.
I agree, and I hope your Lordships will too.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I do not disagree with much of what has been said by my noble friend Lord Anderson. However, I have some concerns about a proliferation of independent reviewers. My suggestion to the Government is that, if there is to be an independent review of Prevent, it should be done by the new Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation who I understand is about to be appointed. After all, Prevent is part of the four-strand counterterrorism policy; it seems logical that the independent reviewer should be able to consider all strands of that policy. My only reservation would be if there were serious national security implications of any such review. That said, all independent reviewers have had to be “subtle and nuanced”, to adopt a phrase from my noble friend, about national security issues. This has been taken into account in the production of all reviews.
Of course I accept that Prevent is not a perfect policy. All policies can be improved, particularly in counterterrorism. If it would give greater confidence to the public, or rather—as I suspect the public are not too worried about this—if it would give greater confidence to those who spend a lot of time in the Palace of Westminster and the couple of square miles around it, then I see no disadvantage in an independent review being carried out by somebody already vetted and expert on counterterrorism policy as a whole.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow two distinguished reviewers of counterterrorism legislation, who more or less agreed with each other. My first realisation of how pivotal the Prevent strand is came when I chaired a focus group with mothers who were concerned that their children were being lured into radicalised behaviour. They were pleading for there to be somewhere where their children, mainly male in that group, could be referred to be helped through the process and not end up as radicalised and potential terrorists. They had huge concerns that if they raised their fears about their sons with the police, the next thing that would happen is that their doors would be kicked in at four in the morning and the young person would be taken away and interrogated, and goodness only knows what would happen after that. Those mothers were also concerned about whether there were routes within their own communities for dealing with such cases and they felt quite strongly that there were none. They did not have a solution: they simply pleaded for something to be found to help them in that situation. That is one of the strongest cases that I have heard as to why this work is so important.
Having said that, there was a desire for alliteration to have four Ps when the Contest strategy was created and, in hindsight, that the Prevent strand was included was not entirely helpful. The core of Prevent is safeguarding. We have no qualms about safeguarding young people from sexual abuse, about safeguarding those who are vulnerable or have mental health issues, nor of finding ways to steer young people away from gang-related activities—we do not necessarily know how to do it but we know that it is a good thing to do—and we have no qualms about trying to steer people away from becoming addicted to dangerous drugs. Why should we have any qualms about steering young people—or indeed anyone—away from engagement in radicalisation and in terrorism? The problem has been that it is seen as too closely linked to the counterterrorism policy and the alliteration of the four Ps.
We should be quite clear that counterterrorism is important. It has to be addressed in this way and the Prevent programme has not always been as effective as it might have been in individual cases. Again, I remember 12 years ago—I cannot recall exactly when: I would have to check my diary—visiting two Prevent projects in London in adjacent London boroughs. They had similar mixes but took completely different approaches, for no obvious reason. In one, it appeared that if someone was referred to the programme, a large, burly police officer would go around and try to talk them out of it, which, frankly, will not produce the most effective results. There was an issue, particularly at the beginning and perhaps less so now, of quality control in the way in which some Prevent activities have been taking place.
We should also recognise that the fact that Prevent has such a difficult reputation is not entirely accidental. It is not entirely the consequence of that variability in the style but because some organisations and individuals have desperately tried to traduce it and make it appear more sinister than it is—for whatever reasons we can only speculate, but that is what has happened.
My noble friend’s amendment is important not necessarily because we will end up with something very different, but we need to look at those quality control issues, to establish that it is being done as well as possible, and we need to emphasise that the mission is safeguarding and protection of the individual rather than being part of the counterterrorism machinery which necessarily leads people to conviction and imprisonment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, we are coming at this from slightly different directions, which is very healthy in a debate. My concern is twofold. Prevent sometimes has a corrosive impact on communities; I am also extremely concerned about its impact on civil liberties and the right to freedom of speech.
The principle of Prevent is good but it is a curate’s egg. If we did not have it, we would have to find something similar. Getting early intervention and helping people to avoid going down dangerous paths is an excellent idea, but there have been too many horror stories. I am sure noble Lords have heard many of them. There is a video on social media about an eight year-old boy who was quizzed by police about whether his father taught him about the Koran. He was terrified and could not understand. When the police asked a direct question—“What does your dad teach you?”—he responded, “Maths”.
Then was a Guardian report that a teenage anti-fracking campaigner had been referred to the Prevent strategy to check on whether they had been radicalised. In fact, the person had nothing to do with anti-fracking, but that description had been used to cover up the real group that had tried to influence him, so valid protests against fracking were linked with dangerous terrorism, which again is a real problem for civil liberties. A Green Party member in Doncaster had a friendly visit from the police citing Prevent because they had submitted online criticism of British foreign policy in the Middle East.
Those events are state intrusion into people’s thought processes and freedom of expression, and are deeply wrong. Therefore, an investigation or inquiry to see where Prevent has gone wrong and where it can be put right is the only way forward. I put the question to the Government in Committee and I ask it again now: what do they have to hide? If Prevent really is as fair and effective as the Government claim, a thorough, independent review would prove that point once and for all.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, it is interesting that eight years ago today, Mohamed Bouazizi set fire to himself in Tunisia kicking off the Arab spring, which brought devastation to the whole of the Middle East and dramatically increased the number of terrorists. It is appropriate that we are discussing a counterterrorism Bill, because this is such an important issue.
I have some sympathy for my noble friend Lord Harris’s safeguarding comments. There is no doubt that the alliteration was very useful. I found the four Ps a useful reminder when talking to the media at the time, and there is no doubt that there is a strong element of safeguarding within the Prevent strategy. But as I have said, Prevent is a curate’s egg. Some bits have done very well and some bits have not. It has not hit the right places. There is no doubt that there has been traducing of it by some people, which is unfortunate, but of the four strands, the reality is that Prevent is probably the most important in the final analysis. I had the other three firmly under my control when I was in the Home Office, but not Prevent. It was separate, which is unfortunate because it is such an important strand. The way that I believe we will finally defeat terrorism is by getting this right.
Therefore, it is important that we review what is going on. I strongly support the amendment. It is absolutely appropriate that we have a review and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile; I am not quite sure how the review should be undertaken and by whom, but the Government should consider it. I am certain, however, that we should have a thorough review to look at this before we move forward.
Lord Stunell
My Lords, I support the amendment. We have rehearsed this issue at each stage of the Bill and I remind the House that a wide range of external organisations share the view that there should be a review. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and now from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that such a thing might add value. The Government have struggled to resist the reasoning put forward. The bottom line seems to be that the Government do not want a review and it is extremely difficult to penetrate why that might be when one looks at the advantages that flow from having one.
It is important to understand that activity is no guarantee of effectiveness. A lot of work goes on, but how effective is it? We heard evidence from the noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Harris, that it is not uniformly good. Certainly, the impression of those who believe themselves to be the targets of Prevent is that it is not uniformly good. The Minister needs to answer in detail what the Government’s reservations are about any sort of review along the lines of the amendment.
I noted carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, had to say about the Prevent oversight board. He said that it had not met often enough. Providentially for his case, it had met in the last week, but he did not disclose how long before that it last met. If the next meeting is in six months and he thinks that is soon enough, I presume the gap was quite extensive.
I notice that my supposition was, to some extent, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who said of last week’s meeting that he was glad the Prevent oversight board was at last showing some signs of life. I hope I am not putting words into his mouth; I think that is what he said. Bearing in mind the qualified support that has come for the Prevent oversight board’s activity and effectiveness, I wonder whether the Government are really satisfied it is the right vehicle for a review, a substitute for a review or gives all the answers that a review would. It seems likely that that is not the case.
Other specific concerns have come to light since our previous debate. I have been approached by an outside organisation that, until this year, was a provider of Prevent projects to those who had been referred. It pointed out to me that it has now been superseded, at short notice in its opinion, by a private provider. It alleges that there is no effective procurement policy for those programmes. Far too often, it appears to depend on the knowledge and contacts of a Prevent co-ordinator, rather than a rigorous management process. I hope the Minister will be able, at least in principle, to give some reassurance on that. To help her in giving that reassurance, could she say something about the proportion of projects that are delivered through NGOs, the proportion delivered through private companies and the proportion delivered through local authorities or other public services directly? Have those proportions changed over the last four or five years, as my informant alleges? If there has been a change, was it cost-driven or based on an evaluation of whether particular projects were the wrong part of the curate’s egg, and were therefore dropped, or were too expensive for the results?
All of this raises the question of what results and criteria are being used in allocating, renewing or discontinuing such contracts. Surely evaluation is a key part of that; therefore, review of the process seems all the more necessary. I hope, for all the reasons that have been rehearsed, not least that one, that the Minister is able to accept this amendment today.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, Prevent is an important part of the Government’s anti-terrorism strategy. We have heard about a number of problems relating to it, which have been there for a while. I am persuaded that it is therefore sensible to review the policy and see whether it should be changed, replaced or whatever.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said he could not understand why the Government were resisting this idea. I can tell him exactly why. It is because the Home Office ploughs on regardless. Even when the tractor’s wheels are stuck in the mud, they go on spinning. That is why the Home Office needs constant help in knowing when things should be reviewed. I strongly suggest that my noble friend tears up the brief that says “Don’t review” and says, “Yes, we’ll look at it”.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House—and I have spoken to both our Front Bench and the clerk—I will refer slightly to the last amendment, which does actually refer to the current amendment. I was in the Chamber when this amendment was called.
I want to put a couple of things on record—first, my views on Prevent. I have written about this extensively. I will not plug the book, but it is available on Amazon. In that book, I talk about Prevent in detail. I talk about how, when the policy was started in 2003 and first published in this iteration in 2006, I supported it. It was effectively an upstream intervention into areas where we felt we could intervene, predominantly with young people and British Muslims at that time, although we are increasingly dealing with far-right extremism now. We were predominantly intervening with young people who may be attracted into terrorism. How could anybody disagree with that principle?
In my book—and this is the issue that I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—I work through the various iterations of Prevent. It has changed from what it was in 2003 to what it is now in 2018. It started as a policy specifically designed to be run as an internal discussion within communities of what could be considered to be extremist views. It was supposed to be a genuine, non-criminalised safe space and a battle of ideas—something I fundamentally supported—but it became a policy that was done not by the community but to the community. This is an issue I have consistently raised: what the policy became and the way it was then implemented; the level and quality of training, the material being used, the way it was implemented in different schools and differently across different communities. All of this—with 100 pages of citations if that helps the noble Lord—is detailed in the book, because it was important to say clearly that a principle of policy that I supported has, over time, become fundamentally flawed in its implementation and lost the trust of the communities we were trying to influence.
As a British Muslim parent whose children are likely to be vulnerable and to be approached by those who want to lead them astray, whether into extremism, terrorism or elsewhere, I would be the first in line to say this policy needs to be supported. But I do not want a policy on our books, which has statutory basis, which is badly implemented.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I read the noble Baroness’s book with great interest and I am glad to see that she is now taking part in our debate. Does she not agree that the iterations she describes in her book show the progress from a Prevent strategy run by the police to one now not run by the police? All the best examples of Prevent are run by NGOs, private sector groups or local authorities. The police are involved in Prevent only when there is evidence of an offence having been committed. Is that not real progress, which we ought to laud and welcome, in the changes to Prevent? I expect to agree with the noble Baroness on this point.
Baroness Warsi
As the noble Lord is aware, I took part in the Bill’s Second Reading debate and made my views clear to the Minister and to many colleagues in the House, publicly and privately. My views on this are on record and, when we vote, I will make them clear.
As I have said, it is not so much a question of who delivers Prevent—the police or third-sector organisations —but that it is delivered so that the communities trust the policy. It is clear that, as it stands, British Muslim communities do not trust Prevent. Therefore, as somebody who supports the principles behind it, I feel it is appropriate and entirely right to have an independent review. We are not asking for Prevent to be forgone completely. Many Members of this House are saying we should keep the good bits.
Lord West of Spithead
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that it is not that every part of the Muslim community has no trust in Prevent. I am not aware of that, and I have been involved in it for quite a long time. Certainly, there are sections which have real problems with it and that needs to be addressed, but there are also sections which are pleased that this work is being done. Does she agree that that is correct?
Baroness Warsi
That is the point. When Prevent has been applied correctly and has been led by and with the community, it has made real progress. When you speak to practitioners on the ground—those who have ignored much of national policy; those who have ignored the rules on engagement and disengagement with British Muslim communities and have spoken to whom they want, when they want and how they want—you find that they have built really strong relationships which have allowed sections of the policy to be implemented properly.
Even if you speak to officers like Mr Neil Basu, who was referred to earlier, he himself will say that the biggest challenge for the police has been operating Prevent within a policy of disengagement with British Muslim communities whereby more and more individuals and organisations are simply seen as beyond the pale and are not engaged with. There is a challenge when large sections of the British Muslim community are disengaged and distrustful of a policy that will not be independently reviewed. I can tell my colleagues in government that if it were independently reviewed, it would enjoy more support and therefore would be more effective.
The noble Lord suggested that I believe that the British Muslim community is monolithic. I say to him as someone who is a Muslim and now 47 years of age that I am acutely aware that the British Muslim community is not monolithic. If he would care to read the first four pages of chapter one of my book, he will see that I explain that British Muslim communities are black and brown and Asian and Persian. They come from all over the world and have different theological beliefs and practices. They dress, eat and behave differently. He would then realise that I am a huge advocate of a diverse British Muslim community from many backgrounds. It is therefore wrong of him to attribute to me on the Floor of this House something which I have simply not said.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord West, has said, the Prevent programme is one of the core pillars of the strengthened Contest strategy which was published in June of this year. The strategy was developed taking into account views across the breadth of delivery. The Prevent programme serves as a key pillar in our response to the heightened terrorist threat we face now and in the coming years.
The programme is designed to safeguard and support those vulnerable to radicalisation, both on the far right and Islamist, as my noble friend Lady Warsi said. It is designed to stop them becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said, we should have no qualms about doing so, just as we should safeguard them from sexual exploitation. That point is often forgotten but it is very pertinent. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, expressed her concern about freedom of speech and civil liberties, but terrorism is an infringement of civil liberties of the severest type. I am also sorry to disappoint my noble friend Lord Marlesford, but the Government remain firmly of the view that an independent review of Prevent of the kind envisaged in this amendment is not necessary at this time. Perhaps I may take a few moments to explain why.
As has been said, Prevent is a safeguarding programme that works. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has described how Prevent is the only show in town and the intention is to help those who are vulnerable and are being targeted and exploited by radicalisers. Sir Rob Wainwright, the former head of Europol, has described Prevent as the,
“best practice model in Europe”,
for tackling extremism.
In Committee I outlined how Prevent was not the beginnings of state surveillance, as it has been portrayed sometimes; rather, it is a locally driven programme that works with communities to deliver resilience-building activity and prevent some of the most vulnerable in our society becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, challenged a number of noble Lords to identify a specific local Prevent project which had given rise to concerns. It was very telling then, as it is now, that no noble Lord has yet identified such a project. The noble Lord talked about how private and public NGOs are now working on Prevent projects. Moreover, to answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, about the proportions being delivered by each, while I do not have the exact numbers, perhaps I may write to him.
While Prevent is successful at safeguarding individuals from becoming radicalised, it is not always well understood. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord West, about promoting the safeguarding aspect of Prevent. It also supports partners to run a programme of engagement events with their communities. These events seek to engage members of the public and provide opportunities to hear at first hand from practitioners and community organisations about Prevent delivery, as well as acting as an open forum for discussion about its implementation. Further, Prevent does not target any one group, as is often said. It helps to address the growing and pernicious threat from the far right and to provide support for those referred due to concerns about Islamist extremism, among a range of other extremist beliefs. Indeed, the latest statistics, published just last week, show that of those individuals who received Channel support in 2017-18, near equal numbers were referred for concerns relating to far right extremism and to Islamist extremism.
On the positive impact of Prevent, I would remind the House of what Cressida Dick, the Commissioner of the Met police, said in June in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Lord West of Spithead
Everything the noble Baroness is saying supports the importance of Prevent, which I think all noble Lords would agree with. That is not really the issue. What we are saying is that, given that it is really important, does it not make sense to have a review to look at whether we can make it even better?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
If the noble Lord will indulge me, I was about to explain how the Prevent programme is evolving and being scrutinised, including through Contest. Perhaps I may go back to the comments made by the Commissioner of the Met:
“There is an awful lot of very, very good work that has gone on under Prevent in relation to all forms of extremism, not forgetting extreme right-wing, which takes up a big part of it. There have been hundreds of people who have been turned away from violent extremism by their engagement with Channel and other aspects of Prevent, and that is all positive”.
Prevent is not about restricting debate or free speech, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, might suggest. On the contrary: as the Government have said previously, schools ought to be safe spaces in which children and young people can understand and discuss sensitive topics, including terrorism and extremist ideologies. An independent study of education professionals found that almost three-quarters of them believe that the Prevent duty has not stifled classroom discussions of extremism, intolerance and inequality.
Since it was launched in 2011, Prevent training has been completed more than 1.1 million times to enable front-line practitioners, including teachers, to recognise the signs of radicalisation so that they know what steps to take, including, where appropriate, how to make a referral to Channel. This has positively supported teachers in discussing the risks of radicalisation with those in their classes. To our knowledge, no event or speaker has ever been cancelled or banned as a result of the Prevent duty. It is about upskilling individuals, not curtailing them. The Government believe that it is imperative that young people learn how to challenge dangerous beliefs which are all too easily accessible online. Since February 2010, some 300,000 pieces of illegal terrorist material have been removed from the internet.
In addition to the examples of increased transparency that I outlined in Committee, which included the annual publication of Prevent and Channel data and increasing the number and geographical reach of community round tables, there is increased cross-party engagement, led by the security Minister. Also, as mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on 28 November the Home Secretary chaired the latest meeting of the Prevent oversight board, which brings together other Secretaries of State, operational partners and independent members to review delivery and to provide the strategic challenge noble Lords have talked about. I therefore understand the concerns of noble Lords.
Lord Stunell
Is the Minister able to tell us when the preceding meeting of the oversight board was held, and what the gap was?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am not, but I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, can.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I can. The previous meeting—and the noble Lord is making a fair point—took place 18 months previously. During that period, I for one requested meetings take place on a regular basis. At least two meetings were cancelled during that time, dates having been set and put in diaries. I happen to be a member of the Prevent oversight board, so I am aware of the calendar. One of the points made at the most recent meeting was that, if the board is to be effective, it must meet more frequently. One of the reasons why there was such a long delay—and the noble Baroness may confirm this—was because it had been established that the Prevent oversight board should be chaired by the Home Secretary. That has been a difficulty, but on the most recent occasion, if I remember rightly, the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor were present, along with a number of other Ministers.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and I think that is right. If this debate has done nothing else, it has probably given the impetus to ensure the oversight board meets more regularly, and I shall take that back.
There needs to be evidence of systemic failures to justify a review. I will take back the point about the oversight board meeting more often. Prevent should be subject to proper scrutiny, but I hope I have already outlined a number of mechanisms for this. It is also open to the Home Affairs Select Committee to conduct an inquiry into Prevent, should it wish to do so. Furthermore, the fifth anniversary of the passage of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 does offer the opportunity to undertake the normal pre-legislative review of the provisions in Part 5 of that Act, providing the legislative framework for Prevent.
I hope my explanation has provided some comfort to noble Lords. I suspect by the gathering crowds it has not.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am sorry to interrupt again, but can the Minister also deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford? It was suggested that the Home Office contains officials who do not really focus on Prevent. Could she confirm there is a strong Prevent group within the Home Office, chaired by an experienced and competent person who does a great deal of conceptual thinking in this area and is open to discussion with any Member of your Lordships’ House who shows some understanding of this issue and cares to discuss it with him or his team, which is now frighteningly large?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right, and that team is growing. I think my noble friend Lord Marlesford is concerned about the Home Office in general, but I can confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, says.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate today, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, my noble friend Lord West of Spithead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. These are serious matters, and counterterrorism work in all its strands is important to keep us safe, and we support the Government to do that. It is also important that these things are looked at independently, and as I said in my opening contribution, I am happy for this review to be undertaken by the independent reviewer.
I note what the noble Baroness said about the amendment as drafted, but other than saying there should be a review, it is fairly open on how it takes place. I did not see why that caused the Government particular problems. I have listened carefully to all of the contributions, and to the response of the noble Baroness. Although I have great respect for her, I am not persuaded by her response, and so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
“Amendment to the criteria for proscription
For section 3(4) of the Terrorism Act 2000, substitute—“(4) The Secretary of State may exercise the power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if—(a) he or she is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that it is or has been concerned in terrorism; and(b) he or she reasonably believes that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, for the organisation to be proscribed.(4A) For the purpose of subsection (4), the public includes the public of a country other than the United Kingdom.””
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
My Lords, the amendments in this group have their origins in a fact admitted by the Government, published in more than one of my reports as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and, I am afraid, mentioned more than once to your Lordships: at least 14 of the 74 organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, not including the 14 Northern Irish groups, are not concerned in terrorism and therefore do not meet the minimum statutory condition for proscription.
The question is: what do we do about that mismatch between law and practice? The pertinence of that question is greatly increased by the fact that a major theme of the Bill is to widen the scope, both substantive and geographical, of the proscription offences—membership, inviting support and so on.
Amendment 32B was designed to apply the law we have, by providing for an annual review of the activities of proscribed organisations—as happened routinely until four years ago—and the de-proscription of those lacking a statutory basis for continued listing. That principled course was chosen by Theresa May, as Home Secretary in 2013, when the irregularity was brought to her attention. With Amendment 32B, action on the conclusion of such reviews would be required by statute and could not be defeated by Foreign Office policy priorities, as was the case on that occasion, and indeed previous ones, judging from my noble friend Lady Manningham-Buller’s speech in Committee.
Since that seemed not to be enough, I tabled Amendment 32A in an attempt to make things easier. This would allow organisations to be proscribed if they are or have been concerned in terrorism, so long as the Secretary of State reasonably believes it necessary for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism.
That two-stage formulation is tried and tested. It was used in the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 and the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. It would allow the continued proscription of groups which have a powerful history and terrorist brand, but in respect of which ongoing terrorist activity cannot be demonstrated. This could be particularly useful in Northern Ireland, where groups that have laid down their arms do not satisfy the current test but, depending on the Secretary of State’s assessment, could satisfy the new one. More fundamentally, it would have the merit of ensuring that the Government’s actions in relation to proscription are in accordance with the law; currently, they are not. This would be a useful example to set the rest of us.
I convey to the House the apologies of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who has had to leave his place and I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, to which I have added my name. I really am intrigued to hear what the Minister will say about the fact raised by the noble Lord that at least 14 organisations still proscribed by the Government are not involved in terrorism and are therefore effectively proscribed illegally. The noble Lord’s amendments are designed to rectify that situation, requiring the Government to take action once a review has determined whether organisations currently proscribed should be proscribed or not.
It is not just a question of the organisations themselves; going back to previous measures in the Bill, anybody who supports these organisations could be convicted of a criminal offence, even though they are supporting an organisation that should not legally be proscribed. I am also very interested to hear from my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench why they would not support these amendments were the noble Lord to divide the House. We certainly would support him were he to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, the first thing to say is that organisations can apply to be de-proscribed; that should be on the record in this part of our debate. As I understand it, only one organisation has applied to be de-proscribed in recent years: the People’s Mujahedin of Iran. It was de-proscribed. The decision before the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, or POAC, was contested on appeal by—
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
I did not mean to interrupt the noble Lord mid-sentence but, on a point of information, the Minister may like to confirm that at least two other organisations have applied to be de-proscribed: the International Sikh Youth Federation and the Red Hand Commando in Northern Ireland. De-proscription of the International Sikh Youth Federation was achieved when the Home Secretary failed to defend the legal proceedings. I know nothing about the progress of the application from the Red Hand Commando and it would be helpful if the Minister could enlighten us.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am very grateful to my noble friend, who is more up to date than I am. My understanding is that the only fully contested application was from the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, which won in front of POAC. The Government appealed and the Court of Appeal issued a judgment comprehensively disagreeing with the Government. The People’s Mujahedin of Iran—or the NCRI, which includes the PMOI—now functions openly throughout Europe, although its leader, Mrs Rajavi, is not allowed by the Home Office to enter the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Pannick and I remember this to our cost, because we were involved in a Supreme Court case on that very subject.
There is a method of seeking de-proscription. It is expensive and quite clunky, it has to be accepted. Secondly, I absolutely agree with my noble friend that there may be some organisations that have almost no membership, which do not have the resources to apply for de-proscription, and which individuals would not wish to expose themselves as being interested in by applying for de-proscription on their behalf.
However, there is another point I wanted to mention. This is a very subtle matter, particularly in Northern Ireland. It is very difficult to read the minds of some former paramilitaries, both big and small. For all we know, they may have reasons for wishing to remain proscribed. My concern about Amendments 32A and 32B relates to the wording of proposed new subsection (6A)(d), which requires the Government to “publish each such decision”. Having been involved from time to time in the area we are talking about, I believe that would potentially raise compromises for national security and undermine the stability of Northern Ireland, if that part of the amendment was required. That said, the addition of the words,
“that it is or has been concerned in terrorism”,
in Amendment 32A, which I understand from my noble friend was tabled in the last fortnight or so, provides some welcome clarity. I will give way, and then I will continue briefly.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I may have misunderstood the noble Lord and I am grateful to him for giving way. If he is objecting to the idea that the decision should not be published, how will somebody know whether an organisation is proscribed or not?
Lord Carlile of Berriew
The last paragraph would remain: a record would have to be placed before Parliament. What I am concerned about is the giving of reasons.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
In my view, it is implicit in the publication of each such decision that decisions have to be reasonable and therefore subject to reasons. I would not want issues that might affect national security to be included. That is the point I am seeking to make.
I conclude by suggesting that the whole problem raised by Amendments 32A and 32B could be resolved if we were to hear from whichever Minister replies to the debate—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—that the Government accept the principles set out in these amendments and that there is a need for them to be more methodical than they have been in reviewing proscription, and undertake that Ministers will be more methodical and apply the principles broadly set out in these amendments, which in principle I see as unexceptionable.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, it might encourage my noble friends on the Front Bench to do as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has indicated. I find the principles behind the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, very attractive. No doubt some practical points need to be sorted out. I am much encouraged by the wording,
“it is or has been”,
in proposed new subsection (4)(a) in Amendment 32A. I fully take on board the concerns a Government might have relating to the publication of the reasons for making a decision under the review of proscription provisions in Amendment 32B. That said, there seems to be, at least as a matter of theory, a lot to commend the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. I encourage the Government to see whether something can be crafted that will enable something similar to this to come on to the statute book, not least for the reasons of departmental policy squabbles that those of us who have been in government know so much about.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, this issue was also looked at in detail in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, raises an important issue concerning groups that have been added to the list of proscribed organisations and that have, to all intents and purposes, stopped engaging in the activity or activities that led to them being added to the list in the first place and the risk to individuals getting caught up in that.
I have listened carefully to the issues raised in that previous debate and in today’s debate and reflected on them, but I have come to the conclusion that I am not persuaded that the change proposed by these amendments is necessary or right at this time. The first duty of government is to protect the public. As we have heard, the 2000 Act already provides a mechanism for an organisation to seek deproscription: there is detailed in Section 4 and further in Section 5 an appeals process to the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission. Further, on a point of law, organisations can go to the Court of Appeal.
I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that there is a process already in place and further, on the points that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made regarding Northern Ireland, I am not persuaded that these amendments are right today. That is not to say that the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, could not be considered to be introduced at some point in the future, but I am not convinced on the merits of the case at this time.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, these amendments return to an issue raised with some force by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in our earlier debates. I am conscious that I was unable to persuade him of my view that the well-intentioned amendment he tabled in Committee would not be in the public interest. I am grateful to him for the further amendment which he has tabled, which would operate in parallel to his original proposal for annual reviews, and which he has explained is intended to address some of the concerns the Government have with that proposal. On careful consideration, regretfully, I cannot agree that it does do so and the Government are not able to support it for reasons I will come to shortly.
Before I come to the detail of the amendments, I should be clear that the Government consider proscription to be a necessary power that plays an important role in protecting the public. Organisations are proscribed for a good reason: because they are terrorist in nature, and because it is in the public interest to prevent them being able to operate or to gain support in the UK. This plays an important role in protecting the public from potentially very dangerous organisations, as well as more generally in maintaining public confidence and, where relevant, supporting our international partners in the struggle against terrorism. The Government also consider that the power’s impact is proportionate to that purpose.
In forming this view I have in mind that, beyond restricting the ability of an individual to engage in the specific activities covered by the proscription offences relating to the particular organisation which has been proscribed, the power does not otherwise impact on their ability to conduct a normal day-to-day life. The impact of proscribing an organisation is not, therefore, overly intrusive or unavoidable from the individual’s perspective.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Carlile, and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for their interventions, and to the Minister for her response, although its content was disappointing. I will respond briefly to the principal points that she made.
The Minister undertook or indicated that, if it came to light through fresh information that a proscription was inappropriate, then it would be reviewed. She said a lot about balance, discretion and appropriateness, but this really is not the area we are in. We are in the area of a hard legal requirement only if an organisation is concerned in terrorism. Is there even any question of getting into that area of discretion, balance and appropriateness? What these amendments seek to address is the mismatch between what the law requires and what the Government do.
The Minister raised the prospect of organisations that might engage, disengage and then re-engage, and I am sympathetic to that. It is precisely the difficulty I was seeking to address with Amendment 32A. That is the one which, by making it a condition to be concerned or to have been concerned in terrorism, elides and removes that difficulty. I would think it was helpful in addressing the problem to which the Minister referred.
The Minister said that annual review is not needed to ensure justice. I say with great respect to her that the evidence during the past 15 years is that nothing else has a hope of ensuring justice. It is not enough to rely just on the ability to apply for deproscription, because, as we have all heard, very few organisations over those years have applied to be deproscribed and one can understand why. It is very expensive. The PMOI case to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred cost some £300,000—perhaps that is lawyers for you. Someone has to put their head above the parapet and say that they want to apply. Some organisations for their own reasons might not want to apply. In any event, what comfort is that to the individual who is disrupted or investigated by police for possibly being connected with a terrorist organisation and who would never have been the person who would have applied for deproscription?
The Minister insisted particularly on Northern Ireland, where, like my noble friend Lord Carlile, I have had the privilege of spending a good deal of time over recent years with the security services. Surely at the root of the Northern Ireland settlement is respect for the rule of law. Continuing to ignore the law, which is what the Government are doing and propose to continue to do, is no substitute for enforcing and, if necessary, changing it, as the amendments propose.
The injustice about the law as it applies is that it exposes people in Northern Ireland, Great Britain and, after Clause 6 becomes law, in other countries as well to a range of police and prosecutorial powers in relation to activities that Parliament never intended should be criminal. The names of the groups that do not meet the statutory condition for proscription are not known to me, and I very much doubt that a secret list of them has been provided to police or prosecutors in the United Kingdom or that such a list would be provided to police or prosecutors in other countries. In those circumstances, there can be no reassurance that the law will be properly applied in practice.
I would have liked to divide the House on these amendments, not least because they concern the whole insecure basis on which much of the Bill is constructed—I am thinking particularly of Clauses 1, 2 and 6—but having heard from the respective Front Benches, I suspect that that could be a futile exercise. I shall not press my amendments and hope that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, have constructively suggested, they may find favour in another form or on another day.
EU Council
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement on last week’s European Council. Before turning to Brexit, let me touch on two significant conclusions from the other business of the Council. First, we expressed our utmost concern over the escalation that we have seen in the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov and Russia’s continued violations of international law. We agreed to roll over economic sanctions against Russia and stand ready to further strengthen our support, in particular for the affected areas of Ukraine.
Secondly, we also agreed to work together on tackling the spread of deliberate, large-scale and systematic disinformation, including as part of hybrid warfare. On this, I outlined some of the world-leading work that the UK is doing in this field. I was clear that, after we have left the European Union, the UK will continue to work closely with our European partners to uphold the international rules-based system and to keep all our people safe. That is why it is right that our Brexit deal includes the deepest security partnership that has ever been agreed with the EU.
At this Council, I faithfully and firmly reflected the concerns of this House over the Northern Ireland backstop. I explained that the assurances that we had already agreed with the EU were insufficient for this House and that we had to go further in showing that we never want to use the backstop and that, if it is used, it must be a temporary arrangement. Some of the resulting exchanges at this Council were robust, but I make no apology for standing up for the interests of this House and those of our whole United Kingdom.
In response, the EU 27 published a series of conclusions. They made it clear that it is their,
‘firm determination to work speedily on a subsequent agreement that establishes by 31 December 2020 alternative arrangements, so that the backstop will not need to be triggered’.
The House will forgive me, but I think that this bears repeating:
‘the backstop will not need to be triggered’.
They underlined that,
‘if the backstop were nevertheless to be triggered, it would apply temporarily’,
and said that, in this event, the EU,
‘would use its best endeavours to negotiate and conclude expeditiously a subsequent agreement that would replace the backstop’.
They gave a new assurance in relation to the future partnership with the UK, to make it even less likely that the backstop would ever be needed, by stating that the EU,
‘stands ready to embark on preparations immediately after signature of the Withdrawal Agreement to ensure that negotiations can start as soon as possible after the UK’s withdrawal’.
In these conclusions, in their statements at the Council and in their private meetings with me, my fellow EU leaders could not have been clearer: they do not want to use this backstop and want to agree the best possible future relationship with us. There is no plot to keep us in the backstop. Indeed, President Macron said on Friday that,
‘we can clarify and reassure … the backstop is not our objective, it is not a durable solution and nobody is trying to lock the UK into the backstop’.
As formal conclusions from a European Council, these commitments have legal status and should be welcomed. They go further than the EU has ever gone previously in trying to address the concerns of this House. Of course, they sit on top of the commitments that we have already negotiated in relation to the backstop, including ensuring that the customs element is UK-wide; that both sides are legally committed to using best endeavours to have our new relationship in place before the end of the implementation period; that if the new relationship is not ready we can choose to extend the implementation period instead of the backstop coming into force; that if the backstop comes in, we can use alternative arrangements, not just the future relationship, to get out of it; that the treaty is clear that the backstop can only ever be temporary, and that there is an explicit termination clause.
But I know that this House is still deeply uncomfortable about the backstop. I understand that and want us to go further still in the reassurances that we secure. Discussions with my EU partners, including Presidents Tusk and Juncker and others, have shown that further clarification following the Council’s conclusions is in fact possible. So discussions are continuing to explore further political and legal assurances. We are also looking closely at new ways of empowering the House of Commons to ensure that any provision for a backstop has democratic legitimacy and to place its own obligations on the Government to ensure that the backstop cannot be in place indefinitely.
It is now only just over 14 weeks until the UK leaves the EU. I know that many Members of this House are concerned that we need to take a decision soon. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House will set out business on Thursday in the usual way, but I can confirm today that we intend to return to the meaningful vote debate in the week commencing 7 January and hold the vote the following week.
When we have the vote, Members will need to reflect carefully on what is in the best interests of our country. I know that there are a range of very strongly held personal views on this issue across the House and I respect all of them. But expressing our personal views is not what we are here to do. We asked the British people to take this decision, with 472 current Members of this House voting for the referendum in June 2015 and just 32 voting against. The British people responded by instructing us to leave the European Union. Similarly, 438 current Members of this House voted to trigger Article 50 to set the process of our departure in motion, with only 85 of today’s Members voting against. Now we must honour our duty to finish the job.
I know that this is not everyone’s perfect deal. It is a compromise. But if we let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we risk leaving the EU with no deal. Of course, we have prepared for no deal, and tomorrow the Cabinet will discuss the next phase of ensuring that we are ready for that scenario. But let us not risk the jobs, services and security of the people whom we serve by turning our backs on an agreement with our neighbours that honours the referendum and provides for a smooth and orderly exit. Avoiding no deal is only possible if we can reach an agreement or if we abandon Brexit entirely and—as I said in the debate earlier this month—do not imagine that, if we vote this down, a different deal is going to miraculously appear. If you want proof, look at the conclusions of this Council. As President Juncker said, it is the ‘best deal possible’ and the ‘only deal possible’. Any proposal for the future relationship, whether Norway, Canada, or any other variety that has been mentioned, would require agreeing this withdrawal agreement. The leader of the Opposition, as well as some others, are trying to pretend they could do otherwise. This is a fiction.
Finally, let us not break faith with the British people by trying to stage another referendum. Another vote would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics, because it would say to millions who trusted in democracy that our democracy does not deliver. Another vote would likely leave us no further forward than the last, and another vote would further divide our country at the very moment we should be working to unite it. Let us not follow the leader of the Opposition in thinking about what gives him the best chance of forcing a general election. For at this critical moment in our history, we should be thinking not about our party’s interests but about the national interest. Let us a find a way to come together and work together in the national interest to see this Brexit through.
I will work tirelessly over these new few weeks to fulfil my responsibility as Prime Minister to find a way forwards. Over the last two weeks, I have met quite a number of colleagues and I am happy to continue doing so on this important issue so we can fulfil our responsibilities to the British people, so that together we can take back control of our borders, laws and money, while protecting the jobs, the security and the integrity of our precious United Kingdom; so that together we can move on to finalising the future relationship with the European Union and the trade deals with the rest of the world that can fuel our prosperity for years to come; so that together we can get this Brexit done and shift the national focus to our domestic priorities—investing in our NHS, our schools and housing, tackling the injustices that so many still face, and building a country that truly works for everyone. For these are the ways in which, together, this House will best serve the interests of the British people. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Well, my Lords, another Monday, another Prime Minister’s Statement. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating today’s offering, not that it offers very much. Last week, the noble Baroness referred to these Statements as her “weekly treat”, but I doubt that she or the Prime Minister feel the same way today. How relieved they must be that Parliament is not sitting next Monday—as far as we know.
This is not a Statement from the Prime Minister that gives any assurance or confidence that she knows where this is going or, indeed, where she is going. In last week’s Statement, following a weekend of assurances that MPs would vote on Tuesday, the Prime Minister refused to allow MPs to make a judgment on her deal. Rather than face defeat she pulled the vote, citing her wish to go back to the EU, although none of us was really clear what she was trying to get. Was it a change or a clarification? In the end, it was neither. Yet again, it was about her living in the moment, delaying a difficult decision, averting today’s immediate crisis without any credible plan for tomorrow.
So what is today’s Statement about? The Prime Minister has now been forced, at the very last minute, to indicate when the Commons will be able to vote on her agreement, but despite continued efforts to present the vote as a choice between her deal and no deal it remains the case that MPs will accept neither. What are the alternatives? We know that the Prime Minister does not want a further referendum, but I have to say I do not think she understands that the main reason this idea is now gaining greater currency, including apparently in her own Cabinet, is the failure of her own leadership. Noble Lords will have seen reports that Mrs May’s chief of staff and her de facto deputy have discussed a further referendum as a means of breaking the current impasse.
Her Statement today, briefed out yesterday, to warn against a further public vote, is yet another example of her attempts to manage her own party rather than delivering for the people and businesses of this country. It is hard to know where her support now is. Despite winning a vote of confidence from her MPs, it is clear that if we assume, as I think we must, that the remaining Government members all voted for the Prime Minister in the secret ballot, she now has the support of only around half her Back-Benchers. All the while, some of her Cabinet colleagues—I use the word loosely—are attempting to take control of the Brexit process amid an unseemly jockeying for position in the chaos that now passes for government.
The Prime Minister cannot expect the world to stand still while she holds on to her deal, fearing its rejection by MPs but allowing nothing else to move on or make progress. It is worth recalling Sherlock Holmes, who said—or had it written for him, I should say—that:
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.
So although the Leader of the Commons will make arrangements for the meaningful vote during the week commencing 14 January, that will be almost two months since the publication of the draft text and a mere 10 weeks until Article 50 expires. Surely MPs should have been allowed to eliminate the impossible—which, as noted earlier, are both the Prime Minister’s deal and the no-deal option—because for the past week the country has been paralysed by Mrs May’s reckless time-wasting. As things stand, this will continue now until the middle of January. We have said for months that parliamentarians should have been involved in mandating the negotiations.
The Education Secretary appears to have been convinced, proposing at last week’s Cabinet conference call a series of free votes to flush out which, if any, majorities exist in the Commons. The International Trade Secretary appeared to agree on “The Andrew Marr Show”, stating that he,
“wouldn’t have a huge problem with Parliament as a whole having a say”,
on what the options were. That may well be the only sensible thing we have heard on Brexit from Liam Fox. The Business Secretary added his support to that suggestion today, but still Mrs May stubbornly ploughs on towards the cliff edge. The public and businesses are desperate for certainty. Last week we saw the announcement of 5,000 job losses at Jaguar Land Rover, with our departure from the EU confirmed as part of the reason. As the deadline looms, others will be making investment plans, or not.
The Statement notes that European Council conclusions are legally binding, but this was not the test that the Prime Minister set herself last week. The Prime Minister says negotiations are ongoing. The Commission disagrees. I have a couple of fairly simple and straightforward questions for the noble Baroness. First, given this pressing need for certainty, with the deadline looming, can she confirm whether, in her opinion, any meaningful change, clarification or progress was secured at the summit? Our view is that it is wrong for the Government to try to stumble into the Christmas Recess without putting the matter to a vote and allowing Parliament to move the process forward. I have to say to the noble Baroness that it really feels now that the Prime Minister is deliberately orchestrating a delay to ensure that there is an irresponsible choice between her deal and no deal.
The noble Baroness heard the truncated debate in your Lordships’ House earlier this month—I know she sat through a very large part of it—and the wide support for the no-deal part of the Motion in my name. She will also be at tomorrow’s Cabinet meeting, where apparently there is to be a discussion about spending an extra £2 billion on no-deal planning. Many in your Lordships’ House will consider this a dire use of taxpayers’ money. Would it not be better to cut that Cabinet debate short and use the time to prepare to get a view from MPs before Christmas on what is impossible, so that the time that remains—the sand is dropping out until the end of March—can be used to achieve something that is possible? Is the noble Baroness prepared to relay such a message from this House to the Prime Minister at the Cabinet meeting tomorrow?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. The following seems to me an accurate summary of the current situation:
“Downing Street has stopped selling the Prime Minister’s flawed deal. Instead we have displacement activity designed to distract from last week’s failed renegotiation and a concerted attempt to discredit every plausible alternative as they run down the clock. This is not in the national interest”.
These are not my words but those of Sam Gyimah, until recently a member of the Government, speaking earlier this afternoon. They sum up the Statement and the current impasse precisely. The Prime Minister did not achieve anything of substance at last week’s Council and is offering no prospect of any change to the backstop provision which stands the remotest chance of assuaging her opponents on her own Benches, far less any opposition MPs. The arithmetic in the Commons is the same as it was last week and will remain so, even if the Prime Minister gets one or two further general, vague assurances from the EU in the coming weeks.
In these circumstances, to wait four weeks for any meaningful vote in the Commons—almost 30% of the time remaining until 29 March—is immensely irresponsible and clearly not in the national interest. I hope the Leader of the House will be able to tell us what the Government’s timetable is for the resumed debate on the deal in your Lordships’ House and when she expects us to be able to vote on it.
When we had our unfinished debate on the Government’s deal, I said that an election would fail to clarify matters because it would be fought by three Conservative Parties. I must apologise to the House. There are not three views of Brexit in the Conservative Party. There are now four different views being expounded by members of the Cabinet alone on the airwaves and in the press. Collective responsibility has completely disappeared, for the truth is that the Government have collapsed. On Brexit, there is no Cabinet agreement on anything. Beyond Brexit, as the Select Committee chairs forcefully pointed out over the weekend, there is no progress on any domestic policy reforms at all, because Brexit is, in their words “sucking the life out of the Government”. In normal circumstances, the Opposition would be rampant. They certainly have every justification for calling a vote of no confidence this week.
I gather that the Opposition are indeed now tabling some sort of vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, but it seems unclear quite what it means. I am tempted to say, “Nothing much new there, then”.
Let us see whether there is a substantive no confidence vote. If there were, whatever its outcome, it would have the advantage of narrowing down the options we now face. Of all of them, the Prime Minister has today decided particularly to attack the concept of a referendum. In her Statement, she says that such a vote would be extremely damaging,
“because it would say to millions who trusted in democracy that our democracy does not deliver”.
But that is precisely the point. The Prime Minister’s deal—indeed, any conceivable deal—could not deliver on the promises of the 2016 referendum, which were grounded in fantasy, not reality. That is why people are so disillusioned, why a majority now want to have the final say, and why they say that they would reject her deal and vote to remain if given such a say. By delaying a meaningful vote for four weeks, the Prime Minister is merely delaying the inevitable. She really should just get on with it.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Baroness and noble Lord for their comments.
The noble Baroness asked about assurances at this summit. As the Statement made clear, there were a number of assurances in the EU Council conclusions. In particular, there was one new assurance, that the Council,
“stands ready to embark on preparations … to ensure that negotiations”—
on the future partnership—
“can start as soon as possible”.
Following the Council, the Prime Minister met with President Macron, Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Rutte and Presidents Tusk and Juncker. All were very clear that discussions on clarifications can continue. She will continue to discuss these over the coming days.
The Government understand that both Houses want to move on, which is why the Statement made clear that we intend to start the debate on the meaningful vote in the week commencing 7 January—the first week back after Christmas—and to hold the vote the following week.
The noble Lord asked about timing of a debate in this House. We had this announcement only today, but we will certainly be having discussions with the usual channels in parallel to discussions in the Commons. We have all worked on a cross-party consensus for the arrangement of debates previously. We certainly intend that to continue. We will let noble Lords know the outcome of those discussions as soon as we can.
The noble Lord mentioned again the second referendum. I can only reiterate what the Prime Minister has said, which is that Parliament has a democratic duty to deliver what the British people voted for. She remains determined to see that happen.
The noble Baroness asked for a message to be relayed to the Prime Minister. I can certainly assure her that the Prime Minister listens to the views of this House and will continue to do so.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, if the deal put forward by the Prime Minister fails to get through the House of Commons, as seems very likely, will my noble friend please tell the Cabinet that there is a large body of opinion in the Conservative Party, in Parliament and outside, supporting a further referendum? We will make common cause with all opinion, wherever we may find it, to achieve that desire.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We are working hard to ensure that we do get this deal through. Should the House of Commons choose to reject it, however, there is a process set out in legislation. We will follow that.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, in the seventh sentence of this Statement, the Prime Minister said that her,
“Brexit deal includes the deepest security partnership that has ever been agreed with the EU”.
This seems a very odd choice of words, since no such security partnership exists. The political declaration, in paragraphs 80 and following, sets out an ambition to have a broad, deep and comprehensive partnership with the European Union, but that is for negotiation. These paragraphs also make it clear that it will not be as good a partnership as we presently have with the other members of the European Union. Will the Leader of the House confirm that no such partnership exists; that the one we eventually have will be worse than we presently have; and that nobody who voted for Brexit voted for less security?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord is absolutely right. The political declaration is a declaration of our intentions for our future relationship. It certainly sets out the intention to have the strongest and broadest security relationship between the UK and the EU. Our partnership and strength in these matters was shown in particular, for instance, in the strong language of the Council conclusions on Russia and its actions in Ukraine, which was very much led by the Prime Minister. We will continue to work very closely on our security relationship. Both sides are absolutely determined to make sure that it is the deepest relationship that exists between the EU and another country.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, would the Leader of the House agree with me that the language of the Statement is not helpful? It says:
“But let us not risk the jobs, services and security of the people whom we serve”.
It is a fact that Brexit, of itself and the process we have gone through, has already done that. To say “Let us not further risk” might be more accurate. It also says:
“Another vote would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics”.
That integrity has already been rubbished by the lack of honesty about the realities that Brexit entails. Thirdly, it states that we should,
“get this Brexit done and shift the national focus to our domestic priorities”,
as if they were either/or.
As Sir Ivan Rogers makes clear in his remarkable lecture from the University of Liverpool—to which I would like to see a response from the Government—Brexit is process, not event, so there is no way in which it can be “got done”. This stage of it might be, but surely it is misleading to the country to suggest that it is somehow done if we get through this bit.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
This Government are going to deliver on the wishes of the British people, as expressed in the referendum. We and the EU have been clear that this is the best deal possible. It is a deal that we have worked extremely hard to secure and it will lead to a strong relationship between the UK and the EU in future. That is what we have been working towards and want to deliver to the British people, because that is what the British people wanted.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I ask the Leader: what will happen if, as seems very likely, the House of Commons does not approve the deal in the week of 14 January? Are the Government prepared to seek an extension of the Article 50 process in order to avoid the worst possible result, which is that we leave the EU with no deal?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Government will be working very hard to get the deal through the House of Commons. But, as I said in response to a previous question, if the House of Commons chooses to reject the deal, there is a process set out in legislation, which we will follow.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the Statement is anxious about future damage in the event of a second referendum, but what about the damage which recent events have been causing—in particular, damage to the value of the pound, which will undoubtedly result in an increase in the cost of living, and damage to the stock market, which will have an adverse impact on the value of the pensions of many of our citizens? Is the Cabinet so suffused with personal ambition and disloyalty that none of them notices what is happening?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The reason we have spent so much time negotiating this deal, which is a good deal, is that we want to ensure that we have a strong relationship with the EU going forward. We are all cognisant of the problems of uncertainty; for instance, that is why we have agreed an implementation period to help ensure that there is not a cliff edge. We are cognisant of the concerns the noble Lord outlined, which is exactly why the Prime Minister has been spending so much time negotiating a deal that is in the good interests of the UK and the EU.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that it would be wrong in principle to embark on a second referendum when we have not yet completed delivery of the instruction from the electorate in the first referendum? But surely there is another reason, which is that it would be pointless to have a further referendum now because, far from people being better informed, the future relationship negotiations have not even started—and those are the ones that will most dramatically affect the future relationship between ourselves and the European Union.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I entirely agree with my noble friend, which is why we are working to make sure that the deal is approved by the House of Commons and we can move forward and, as he rightly says, get to the extremely important position of talking in detail about our future relationship with the EU—a strong, deep one, which we all want.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, given that the Prime Minister said that it was important to act in the national interest, and given that the clear majority of Members of Parliament want to rule out no deal, in the national interest, why can we not have an early vote in the House of Commons which makes it quite clear that the House of Commons rejects the possibility of no deal?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As the Statement makes clear, we have set out the timetable for the vote to take place. We do not want a no-deal situation, which is why the Prime Minister is focusing on providing additional reassurances to the House of Commons, which it has clearly said it wants in order to feel able to support the deal. That is what she is working on, but we have to prepare for all eventualities—that is the only thing a responsible Government could do—and until this deal is passed, there is the possibility of no deal. We are working hard to avoid it but we have to prepare for all eventualities.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, is it not outrageous that a vote that was supposed to take place last week will not take place until the week of 14 January, against a deadline of 21 January? Having sat through more than an hour of the questioning in the other place earlier, it is quite clear that there is not a majority for this deal or for a no-deal Brexit. In those circumstances, is not the plea that was made a moment ago from the Cross Benches for an extension of Article 50 the only sensible way to try to find a consensus, which does exist but is not being allowed to surface?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am afraid I cannot say anything more to noble Lords about the date of the meaningful vote. That is the date that the Prime Minister has announced. That is the date on which it will take place in the House of Commons.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Leader of the House perhaps answer a couple of questions on the backstop? First, it is stated in the Statement that the conclusions of the European Council have legal status. That is not my understanding. They have political status but I do not believe they have legal status. Secondly, has anything come out in the conclusions from the European Council or in any other way that has led the Attorney-General to vary the advice he gave the Cabinet that there is nothing in the withdrawal agreement that permits one side to unilaterally exit the backstop?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As the conclusions were published only on Friday, I am afraid I do not know whether the Attorney-General has given any further advice. With regard to the timescale, I very much doubt it, but if that is not the case, I will write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Prime Minister in her Statement suggested that another vote,
“would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics, because it would say to millions who trusted in democracy that our democracy does not deliver”.
But if there is not a position or a deal on which Members of the House of Commons can agree, democracy is already under challenge. To suggest that voting on the Prime Minister’s deal and pushing that through is the way to deliver democracy is a travesty. It is not what people who voted leave voted for—some of them did; many did not—and it is not what people voted remain for. We need to look again.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We have not had a vote on the deal yet. The vote is coming. To decide further courses of action before we have actually had a vote does not seem that sensible. As I have made clear, if the House of Commons chooses to reject the deal, there is a process set out which will be followed.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Cabinet is to discuss its preparedness for no deal tomorrow morning. In light of that, would it be possible for the Government to give a Statement to Parliament on their preparedness for no deal before Christmas?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As my noble friend will be aware, the Government have regularly updated this House, the other House and Select Committees on our no-deal preparations, and we will continue to do so.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
Is it not the case that people are allowed to decide themselves how they vote? If they wish to change their mind from time to time, they have the right to do that. But on what possible basis of justification do the Government think they can dictate to the British people that they should not be allowed to vote to remain in the European Union if they want to?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Parliament asked the people to make a decision and they did so in the referendum. That is what we are now delivering.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, the Prime Minister tells us that nobody in Europe wants to use the backstop. That begs the question: if no one in Europe wants to use it and no one in Westminster wants to use it, why is it there? Can the Leader tell the House precisely what changes the Prime Minister requested that she believes will effectively deal with the backstop?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord will be aware that the backstop is an insurance policy. We, the EU and the Irish Government have been clear time and again that nobody wants to use the backstop. As I said, the Prime Minister wants further assurances for MPs in the House of Commons that it will not be used. As I have said, in the conclusions that were published on Friday the EU made it clear that it was its firm determination to work speedily on a future relationship so that the backstop will not need to be triggered, and that if the backstop was ever triggered it would apply only temporarily.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, having noted what the Prime Minister said in the Statement with regard to another referendum, the Leader will agree that there is a growing clamour in favour of having another referendum. As we move towards that—possibly—could we all stop talking about a second referendum? It is in fact a third referendum. The small group of people who clamoured over the years to have a second one, which they succeeded in getting in 2016, are now exactly the same people who are saying that a third one at this stage would be unconstitutional. Surely that is hypocrisy in the deepest possible way.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I can say to my noble friend that the focus of the Government is to get through the deal that has been negotiated—a deal that delivers for the UK and the EU and a deal that both sides say is the best deal possible.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, when the noble Baroness the Leader meets her Cabinet colleagues tomorrow to discuss preparations for no deal, will she encourage them not to waste their energies on trying to conjure political rabbits out of the House of Commons hat, to dismiss the lurid propaganda about cliff edges and catastrophes, to apply themselves vigorously to preparing for an orderly transition to WTO rules and to embark at the earliest possible moment on negotiations for a free trade agreement with the EU?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As the noble Lord knows, and as I have said in response to earlier questions, we do not want no deal but it is only right that a prudent Government plan for one. He will also be aware of the extensive work that has already been under way to prepare for no deal over the past two years: the 106 technical notices, the various agreements that we have in place and the money that we have put into preparing for it. This is not a situation that we want to be in but we have to ensure for the British people that all contingencies are covered, and that is what we are doing.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, how much taxpayers’ money would be spent if we had a second referendum? A second referendum would be a complete disaster. As the Prime Minister said, it would damage the core of a democracy that we took 1,000 years to achieve, and this Parliament is part of it. If you do a second referendum, why not a third or a fourth? Actually, why not govern by referenda and get rid of Parliament altogether? It is madness.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I understand that the Electoral Commission has recently published figures showing that the referendum in 2016 cost around £150 million or £160 million. If that is incorrect then I will write to my noble friend, but I think those are the figures that were published. We are not considering a second referendum. We are working to ensure that this deal is passed by the House of Commons.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, much has been made of the need to get the right sequencing into all this. People have generally agreed that it has to be sequenced in a proper way. In order that we do not run out of road, can the noble Baroness the Leader confirm that the current government thinking is that, now that we know the meaningful vote is not until the middle of January, nevertheless there will be time for Parliament to use its good offices to look at how far different options can add value to the way in which the body politic goes forward before other ideas are considered in this very tight timetable, unless we extend the period?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I reiterate that the meaningful vote will be held in the week of 14 January. Obviously we are looking towards winning that vote. As I have also set out, if the House of Commons rejects the deal then there is a process set out in legislation but, as the Statement said, if the deal goes through then we are looking at ways in which we can engage Parliament further in future as we move into the political relationship.
Lord Birt (CB)
Perhaps alone, I think the Prime Minister actually makes a rather compelling case for her deal in the Statement. Yes, it is a compromise, and it is risky and unpalatable, but it offers a route to a productive future relationship with the EU. In this febrile atmosphere, though, I fear that no one is listening to her.
I have two buts. First, we should not wait a month for a meaningful vote; if this does not get through, we need a plan B much more quickly than that. Secondly, I disagree—I hope the noble Baroness the Leader will tell the Cabinet tomorrow the mood of this House—with the Prime Minister’s argument that another vote would divide our country. That is simply not true. I think the opposite is the case: if we run out of road, and it looks as if we are doing so, another vote will be the only way to unite the country.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have said, what we will be focusing on in the weeks before the vote in January is to hope to provide reassurances to MPs so that they vote to support the deal. We will be continuing to talk about the fact that we believe that it is a good deal for both the EU and the UK. That is what our European partners have said and it is what we believe, and we will continue to make the case while trying to get the reassurances that MPs need in order to feel able to support it.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, may I take the noble Baroness back to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick? If the House of Commons rejects the Prime Minister’s deal, she tells us that there is a process. Does that process include consideration of the extension of Article 50, or of the other options that are under consideration—for example, the customs union and the Norway option? Could she give us more detail, particularly on the point about Article 50?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have said, our focus as a Government, and the focus of the Prime Minister, is to ensure that we provide the reassurances that MPs need to get this deal approved. This is the best deal for the EU and the UK. I am afraid I am not going to speculate on situations that may arise if this deal is rejected by the House of Commons. As I have said, a clear process is set out. What our focus is on is to make sure that this deal does get the support that we believe it warrants and that is what the Prime Minister will be focusing on in discussions with her European colleagues over the coming weeks to try to make sure that that is the situation that happens, because we believe that that is the best outcome for the UK and we believe that that is what delivers the referendum result that the people voted for.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick
“(2) The Secretary of State must lay a report annually before both Houses of Parliament setting out details of the exercise of each of the powers provided by Schedule 3 to this Act, and Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, during the year in question.(3) For the purposes of the report in subsection (2) the details must include (but not be limited to) statistics on—(a) the religion, and(b) the ethnicity,of the persons subject to the exercise of the powers.”
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Before I get to the substance of it, I would like to say that lacking in the debate so far today has been the recognition that it is essential that communities work together with the police and the security services in order to defeat terrorism. In fact, when I was a serving police officer and Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve was the head of the counterterrorism department at New Scotland Yard, he said exactly that: it is communities that will defeat terrorism, not the police and the security services working alone.
That was back in the days of Irish republican terrorism, which, in terms of conventional ways of defeating terrorism, was an easier foe to defeat. The Irish Republican Army was a traditional hierarchical organisation that could be infiltrated, and which worked on large-scale spectacular terrorist attacks, so it was much easier to detect than the current threats we face. At the time, DAC John Grieve was talking about the fact that people from Ireland were coming over to the UK and, for example, renting garages to store large quantities of explosives and so forth, so the community could provide information to the police on that sort of activity. Now we see lone-wolf attacks or groups of friends who do not communicate with each other but come together very quickly to carry out far less sophisticated but none the less deadly attacks, regrettably, as we have seen over recent years. The support and co-operation of the public is therefore even more important now than it was when John Grieve was head of the counterterrorism department.
Trust and confidence come from confidence in what the state is doing to defeat terrorism through legislation and activity. That is why we have tabled this amendment. We have discussed at earlier stages of the Bill both Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act—which provides the power to detain people at the border and at airports in order to question them as to whether they were about to engage in terrorist activity—and Schedule 3 to this Bill, which provides an even wider power.
Our initial position was that these powers should be exercised only if there was reasonable cause to suspect that the individual being detained and questioned was involved in terrorism. The House heard compelling arguments from, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, as to why that reasonable suspicion threshold could hamper the work of those keeping us safe at the border. We still have concerns about that. The House having not accepted that that should be part of the way that Schedule 3 and Schedule 7 operate, we have tabled this amendment, which requires the Government to report on the religion and ethnicity of people who have been subject to powers under those schedules.
The Liberal Democrat Campaign for Race Equality has received a number of complaints from people who say they have been detained at airports and have even missed flights before they were allowed to go on their way, and have received no compensation. There is a feeling in some communities that Schedule 7 powers—Schedule 3 powers have yet to come into force—are being unfairly targeted on Muslims and people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. This amendment would bring transparency to the exercise of the powers under Schedules 7 and 3 by requiring the Government to produce a report detailing how those powers are being exercised, including statistics on the religion and ethnicity of the people subject to them. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 33A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has considerable merit. It proposes the collection of this data, including what is set out in subsection (3) of the amendment, and laying a report before Parliament detailing the exercise of the considerable powers under Schedule 3 to the Bill and Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act during the year in question. I will be interested to hear the Government’s response. If they are not minded to accept the amendment, I hope they will give a full explanation of why this is not deemed necessary or acceptable.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their points. I agree with the sentiment of what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said about the role of communities. They are important in assisting the police and security services in countering not only terrorism but extremism. Amendment 33A would require the Home Secretary to lay a report before both Houses of Parliament each year setting out how the ports powers under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and Schedule 3 to this Bill have been exercised.
Reiterating some of what I said earlier, the Government agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, but I hope the noble Lord will agree that it is unnecessary. We entirely agree that transparency and accountability are appropriate in governing the exercise of the new hostile activity ports powers, as is the case with the existing counterterrorism powers. I reiterate, however, that such mechanisms are already in place through the work of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation with respect to Schedule 7, and the future role of the IPC for Schedule 3. Part 6 of Schedule 3 already requires the IPC to review the use of the powers by making an annual report. We envisage this working in a very similar way to the role of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who reports annually on the use of counterterrorism powers under the Terrorism Act, including those in Schedule 7.
Noble Lords should be reassured that the commissioner, like the independent reviewer, will be afforded full access to any Schedule 3 record on request and information on how the powers have been exercised. The scope and content of these reports will be at the discretion of the commissioner, as they have been for a number of years regarding Schedule 7. The annual reports by the independent reviewer are augmented by the quarterly statistical bulletins, published by the Home Office, on the operation in Great Britain of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000. The latest bulletin was published on 6 December and, incidentally, recorded a further 25% decrease in the number of Schedule 7 examinations compared with the previous year. The number of Schedule 7 examinations has now fallen by 79% since the data was first collected in the year ending 30 September 2012. The published data already includes information about the ethnicity of examinees and the number of detentions.
As I said earlier, we are considering with the Home Office chief statistician the appropriate arrangements for publishing statistics on the exercise of the Schedule 3 powers, but we would expect to publish equivalent statistics to Schedule 7. The statistical reports in respect of Schedule 7 do not currently identify the religion of examinees, but we are ready to explore this with the Home Office chief statistician, the police and others. I hope that, on this basis, the noble Lord feels happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. What comes across to me in her response to this and other amendments is that there is a degree of transparency and accountability, in that the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation will look at the Schedule 7 powers and the IPC, presumably, will examine those under Schedule 3. It is all very well for the Government, the independent reviewer or the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to be satisfied that these powers are being used appropriately, but they are not the people who need to be convinced that they are being used fairly: it is the communities—particularly the Muslim community—that need to be convinced. Publishing the religion of people being subjected to these powers is crucial if we are to get the Muslim community to work with us to defeat terrorism.
As I said when I introduced the amendment, people, or groups, can switch almost overnight. For example, the attempted bombings on 21 July 2005 were a carbon copy of those on 7 July, which did not go according to plan. They were supposed to involve four bombs on the Underground, and the copycat attacks on 21 July involved three on the Underground and one on a bus because of what happened on the 7th. That is how quickly the first attack was copy-catted by another group. It is the friends, neighbours and close associates of these lone wolves and groups of friends who will pick up on the changes in their behaviour that show they are moving from being radical to being violent and potentially deadly. It is therefore absolutely essential that we do everything we possibly can to win the trust and confidence of the communities from which these people come.
I am encouraged by the Minister saying that the Home Office statistician will be looking at the issue.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
The Minister said that the Government will be looking at this with the chief statistician and the police. Can she give a timeframe for that? If she cannot do so now, can she come back to the House before too long with an idea of when we might expect some further information on this work?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will come back to the noble Baroness in writing.
Lord Marlesford
“Review: national identity numbers
(1) Within the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament reviewing the case for the introduction of national identity numbers to assist in countering terrorism and ensuring border security.(2) The review must consider whether unique national identity numbers should be linked to a secure and central database containing biometric data to assist with establishing and verifying the identity of possible terrorism suspects or those engaged in hostile state activity, accessible by the relevant national authorities.”
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, this is the second time I have brought my amendment to your Lordships’ House. It fits in very well with the discussion we have had today. There has been a lot of talk about the unease that much of the anti-terror legislation we have appears to discriminate against certain groups. I understand that unease. The legislation is necessary and the threat of Islamic terrorism is sadly growing. One must feel very apprehensive in view of what has suddenly bubbled up yet again in France with the murder of five people by a lone person, probably inspired by IS, in Strasbourg in the Christmas market. We have to be completely on our guard.
I am proposing something totally non-discriminatory. It is not particularly aimed at terrorism, but it is wholly relevant to terrorism and therefore relevant to this Bill. It is essential that any state with a well-ordered government knows who its citizens are. By citizen I mean the nationals and the people living in the state. This is needed for every sort of reason, because the Government are more and more involved with their citizens. We have highly sophisticated welfare systems, health systems, tax systems and many others—control over driving licences and all the rest.
I propose something very simple. I am not asking a lot because I recognise that the Home Office has difficulty with some of these modern concepts of electronics. I sympathise in a sense because my grandchildren are much better at it than I am, but I think I am rather better at it than the Home Office.
Basically, I am asking the Government to take two years to study the possibility of having a system of identification by number, not identity cards, so that everybody has a unique number. That number, in order to make sure that it relates to the person concerned, will be linked to the biometrics of that person. They would not be on a card. That is dangerous because a good criminal terrorist or somebody like that can fake a card, including the biometrics. The biometrics would be centrally held. What the biometrics are is another matter. I know that the Home Office has been very frightened of DNA. I cannot see the difference between DNA and fingerprints, or even a photograph. Biometrics are biometrics and there are many of them, and two or three are needed for certainty.
That is part of the study referred to in the second part of my amendment. The first part is to produce:
“Within the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed … a report before both Houses of Parliament reviewing the case for the introduction of national identity numbers to assist in countering terrorism and ensuring border security”.
The second part of the amendment is to,
“consider whether unique national identity numbers should be linked to a secure and central database containing biometric data”.
I emphasise that it is extremely secure. It is perfectly possible to be absolutely clear who can have access for whatever purpose. All that is simple stuff now. We live in a cyber world and the British Government in many respects are absolutely in advance. GCHQ is a world leader. I think my noble friend Lord Howe will answer this debate and I pay great tribute to him because he is fully aware of things from the point of view of the Ministry of Defence. I give great plaudits to the Ministry of Defence that it is totally up to speed on this. I am afraid the Home Office is not, but I hope it will at least consider this. It is not asking very much.
Many other areas will have side benefits from such a system, particularly national insurance numbers. I have asked PQs on this: there are tens or even hundreds of thousands of extinct national insurance numbers which are still potentially in use. They enable fraudulent use to be made of the various national insurance systems. As far as the National Health Service is concerned, we all have a national health number, but as well as for processing in hospitals it is intended to tell us who is entitled to the services.
We know that the National Health Service is desperately short of funds. Part of the reason is that a lot of people who are not entitled to receive its services are getting them. We have a wonderful reciprocal scheme with Europe whereby Brits going to Europe can be treated under its health service and the British Government pay the cost. That comes to about £500 million a year. The reciprocal is that people from Europe coming to Britain have the right to be treated here and we bill them. We pay £500 million, they pay £50 million. There is something wrong with the administration of the system. When it comes to non-EU citizens and non-UK citizens, the gap is £1 billion, before going on the GP service and primary healthcare where no attempt is made to stop people who are not entitled to use it.
My system, once established, would enable the Government throughout their whole range to see that the services are used by those entitled to them and not by others. At the moment, the service which is available to those who are entitled to it is diluted to a significant extent by its use by people who are not entitled to it.
As for the security side, which is the primary function of the Bill, I think everybody would agree that it is essential that we have a secure and certain system of knowing who the citizens of this country are. I hope my noble friend will say that the Home Office will at least consider this. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 34 brings the attention of the House to an important issue that the noble Lord raised in Committee. I suspect from the response given then by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to that short debate that, unless there has been a major shift in government thinking, this amendment will make no further progress. That is not to say that the noble Lord has not raised an important issue and deserves a considered response from the Government, which I am sure he will get.
At the heart of the amendment is an attempt to protect fellow citizens and, using a review, to look beyond the introduction of national identity cards, which was my party’s policy when in government. We also looked at the advances in science. We learn on a regular basis how advances in science have brought criminals to justice, particularly those who committed the most heinous crimes many decades ago. They thought they had got away with it, but advances in science brought them to justice.
The issues raised by the noble Lord are for a wider debate on a future date on issues of science and technology and how they are used to keep us safe, while being fully aware that criminals also seek to use advances in science and technology to commit crimes, to murder people and to threaten our country and its values. I am clear that the noble Lord is asking for a review and nothing more than that. We must keep things under review. What should the state do to keep us safe? What is being done now and is it proportionate? I look forward to the Government’s response and thank the noble Lord for raising these issues.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for once again setting out his arguments in favour of introducing national identity numbers backed up by a national identity register containing biometric data of everyone in the country, or at least the adult resident population. I recognise the constructive intentions behind this amendment. My noble friend will recall that in Committee I stated that the introduction of a national identity number and register would be prohibitively expensive and would represent a substantial erosion of civil liberties. I know that I will disappoint him by saying that this remains the Government’s position. In consequence, I remain unconvinced of the need to carry out a review to determine this.
Any measure of the kind my noble friend is proposing would have to be evidence-based. We have seen no evidence that a national identity number or biometric database would offer greater protection against terrorism or greater control at the border. As I said in Committee, although a number of European countries have national identity numbers, these have not been able to prevent terrorist atrocities from being carried out—a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. Indeed, even were we to imagine any of those countries having a biometric database alongside national identity numbers, it is hard to see how this would have made any difference to the ability of the police to forestall those attacks.
Resources need to be directed to where they can be relied upon to add tangible value. I am of a view that the investment we are making in security, counterterrorism, better use of intelligence and cybersecurity is a more effective use of resources to keep the country safe against the ongoing threat from terrorism and hostile state activity. I know my noble friend takes a more sanguine view than many noble Lords about the retention of biometric data, but let us think about the debates we have had during the passage of this Bill. During debate on Schedule 2, the Government have been quite properly probed by noble Lords as to whether we have got the balance right on the retention rules for fingerprints and DNA taken from persons arrested for, but not charged with, a terrorism offence. I am clear that the balance is right but the Government accept that, where someone has not been convicted of an offence, there need to be appropriate restrictions on the retention of biometric data. I believe that this view is shared by the overwhelming majority of Members of your Lordships’ House.
Against the backdrop of those debates on Schedule 2, my noble friend’s proposition appears all the starker. He is advocating a national database containing the biometrics of the whole population with, presumably, the data being deleted only on the death of an individual. In considering such a proposition, it is instructive to remind ourselves what the Constitution Committee said about the then Identity Cards Bill in March 2005—that,
“the constitutional significance of the Bill is that it adjusts the fundamental relationship between the individual and the State … the Bill seeks to create an extensive scheme for enabling more information about the lives and characteristics of the entire adult population to be recorded in a single database than has ever been considered necessary or attempted previously in the United Kingdom, or indeed in other western countries. Such a scheme may have the benefits that are claimed for it, but the existence of this extensive new database in the hands of the State makes abuse of privacy possible”.
We do not believe the case against a national identity register has changed in the intervening years.
Having said that, I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend that the Government take the need to counter terrorism and maintain border security very seriously; indeed, we would not be debating the Bill today if this were not the case. Having again had the opportunity to debate the issue, and with the reassurance I have offered about the Government’s commitment to protect the public, I respectfully ask my noble friend if he would be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marlesford
I thank my noble friend for his reply and the trouble he has taken with it, but I am not reassured at all. He started by talking about the enormous cost; I was only asking for a study. One of the things a study would reveal would be some indication of costs; that would be a criterion in knowing how to move forward. Then he produced the idea that countries which have identity systems have not been able to prevent terrorist attacks; certainly terrorist attacks have occurred in countries with those systems, but it is failing logic to say that that means they are of no use. We do not know which attacks were not successful as a result of having the system.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, Schedule 3 to the Bill will confer a bristling armoury of powers on ports police: the power to detain travellers for up to six hours; a requirement that questions be answered and passcodes surrendered, on pain of prosecution and possible imprisonment; powers to take samples and strip search; and the power to download and retain the entire contents of laptops and mobile phones. In Committee, I expressed unease at the prospect of some 1,400 ports officers up and down the country being entrusted with these powers and the right to use them without any need for suspicion for the purpose of determining whether members of the travelling public appear to be engaged in activity that, while reprehensible, is perfectly lawful.
At that stage, three examples were given of activity that was said to be detrimental to national security without amounting to serious crime. Each of them fell squarely within the scope of the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1920 and could thus have quite legitimately been the subject of questioning under a law formulated according to these amendments. I continue to believe that strong coercive powers of this nature should, as a matter of principle, be available only in the context of criminality and that the best way to address any deficit is by amendment or addition to our national security legislation. However, since Committee, two further examples have been put to me on which the Minister may choose to elaborate that suggest at least one respect in which our existing law is inadequate to protect against threats to our national security. So until that gap has been filled, a pragmatic case, I accept, has been advanced for extending the Schedule 3 power beyond serious crime.
Furthermore, government Amendment 34C has addressed the most obviously objectionable feature of the clause, and that is its unqualified recourse to the nebulous—if I may use that word—notion of threats to,
“the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”.
I understand that further assurances are to be offered in the draft code of practice that will be laid before this House after the passage of this Bill.
Finally, I take comfort from paragraph 62 of Schedule 3, which the Minister mentioned in the previous debate, which requires the Investigatory Powers Commissioner—currently Sir Adrian Fulford, a serving Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal—to keep under review the operation of the relevant provisions, and provides for the publication of the commissioner’s annual review. Annual reviews over the many years of the equivalent power under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act have given rise to a number of changes to the code of practice and to legislation, and have been extensively relied on in the courts.
Will the Minister confirm that the necessary additional resources will be made available to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for the performance of that task by him and his office? Will she confirm that that will be the case even if the number of stops should turn out greatly to exceed the current estimate of 100 per year? She will remember that, according to figures—provided to me by the Metropolitan Police and published in December 2016—on the intelligence reports filed after Schedule 7 stops between 2009 and 2015, an annual total of between 5% and 8% related to counterespionage and between 8% and 17% related to counterproliferation. That was despite the fact that at that stage no specific power existed for questioning travellers in order to determine whether they were spies or proliferators. It would seem that quite large numbers of people who might have fallen within those categories were stopped and questioned. If remotely accurate, those figures are suggestive of the possibility that the Schedule 3 power could be used up to a few thousand times a year rather than merely several dozen. I appreciate that the Minister does not have a crystal ball, but the need for proper resource to report on this extremely sensitive power is clear and I hope that she will acknowledge that.
On that basis, I support government Amendment 34C and do not propose to press Amendments 34A, 34B or 34D. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I added my name to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. As he said, the Schedule 3 powers are considerable and can be exercised against someone even if the activity they are suspected of being engaged in does not amount to a serious crime. Therefore, we certainly feel that the amendments are valid. However, we accept that the noble Lord has received reassurances from the Government, which I hope the Minister will elaborate on in her response. Clearly, following the comments that we made from these Benches about actions that affect “the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”, the amendments tabled by the Minister provide reassurance on that particular issue.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 34A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, raises the same issue that the noble Lord led on in Committee. The noble Lord quite rightly raised the issue of the words “hostile act”. The words are far too wide and give a disproportionate power to the relevant authorities. The noble Lord spoke in Committee about these strong coercive powers.
To their credit, the Government have listened to that debate and I know that they have been in discussion with a number of noble Lords around the House, as have government officials. I have found those discussions very helpful and I am persuaded that the amendments put forward by the Government in this group address the concerns raised previously, so I am content to support the Government and their amendments in this group.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, with this group of amendments we return to the question of the proper scope of the powers in Schedule 3. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has again argued that police powers of this kind should only be available to the police to tackle criminal behaviour. As I highlighted in Committee, and would like to stress again, these new powers to examine persons at ports and the border area are specifically designed to mitigate the threat from all forms of hostile state activity. Limiting the scope of these powers would limit the range of threats that we would be able to detect, disrupt and deter, thereby leaving the country vulnerable.
The noble Lord is correct that many of the activities we are concerned about may be criminal in nature, including offences under the Official Secrets Act 1911. However, not only is this legislation generally recognised to be outdated and not fit for the modern age, but not all hostile activity would fall within scope. The noble Lord is right that we need to consider modernising the law in this area, and the House is aware that the Law Commission is undertaking a review of criminal law surrounding the protection of official data, which includes all the Official Secrets Acts, but this work will necessarily take some time to come to fruition and, until we know the outcome, it would be wrong to narrow the scope of the provisions in Schedule 3. To do so would necessarily inhibit our ability to counter hostile activity, as the police would naturally err on the side of caution when conducting stops, given the risk of challenge about whether the stop or subsequent questioning was clearly for the purpose of determining whether the examinee is, or has been, involved in serious crime.
I recognise the noble Lord’s concerns that the breadth of the power could encompass activities which are not considered crimes. If such activity threatens the safety of our citizens, our democracy and our national security, it is only right that we afford the police the powers to investigate, prevent and discourage these acts in order to protect us. Some hostile activity would not be considered criminal activity under the law as is stands—for example, the proliferation of disinformation. We know that certain states routinely use disinformation as a foreign policy tool and have seen evidence of this happening elsewhere.
In recent years, some states have attempted to influence opinions online by using human and automated troll farms to establish fake social media profiles or spread disinformation. One can imagine a scenario in which a member of one such troll farm, controlled by a foreign power that has been observed attempting to influence public debate in the UK, travels to the UK. The act of sowing discord through proliferation of disinformation is not a crime in the UK, but you can imagine a scenario in which it would threaten our national security. Under the noble Lord’s proposed amendment, police officers at ports would be rightly unwilling to ask about these activities, as they are not illegal.
Interference operations are not restricted to the online space. Suppose an individual with suspected links to a hostile foreign intelligence agency travels to the UK, with the intention of meeting parliamentarians under a benign pretext, but with the real intention of influencing them to support a particular position which would be of benefit to that state. This type of activity is not illegal in the UK; the individual is not obliged to disclose that they have an ulterior motive of seeking to influence parliamentarians, but noble Lords understand that this activity is a threat to our national security and risks undermining our parliamentary democracy. Under the noble Lord’s amendment, as this type of activity would not be classified as a crime in the UK, police officers at ports would be unable to ask questions of a sufficiently detailed nature to provide the level of insight necessary to properly understand, assess, further investigate or disrupt the threat that this activity would present.
Some individuals may not even be aware that they are acting on behalf of a hostile actor. They may think they are working for a charity or a friend. Many of the serious crimes that we would consider linking to Schedule 3 require an intention element on the part of the individual.
We have reflected carefully on comments made, including by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about the scope of the “threatens the economic well-being of the United Kingdom” limb of the definition of a hostile act. There were concerns that legitimate business ventures would fall within scope of the power. This limb of the definition is intended to ensure that these powers can be used to mitigate hostile acts such as damaging the country’s national infrastructure or disrupting energy supplies to the UK. It is not our intention that these powers are available to examine those travelling only to conduct legitimate business.
To address these concerns, I have tabled Amendment 34C, which narrows the scope of the “economic well-being” limb. This amendment will provide that an act is a hostile act under this limb only if it threatens the economic well-being of the UK,
“in a way relevant to the interests of national security”.
The other government amendments in this group make consequential changes to other references to the economic well-being of the UK in Schedule 3.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked whether the IPC will have the resources needed to review the use of Schedule 3. The Government are committed to ensuring the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has the resources that he or she needs to fulfil all their functions, including Schedule 3 when these provisions come into force. However, I should emphasise that we expect the use of Schedule 3 powers to be very low, certainly far below the number of Schedule 7 examinations conducted in 2017.
At this point, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the Home Office is reviewing whether there is a need for new counter hostile state activity legislation. I have already mentioned the Law Commission review of the Official Secrets Acts, but our work is not confined solely to that area of criminal law. Of course, any reforms to the Official Secrets Acts or any other new offences will require further primary legislation and, in taking this work forward, I can assure the noble Lord that we will examine as part of the work whether there are any changes that we ought to make to Schedule 3.
In taking this wider work forward, we will also have the benefit of the annual reports on the exercise of Schedule 3 powers by the IPC. I am confident that in reviewing this, having all the resources he needs in place, the commissioner will adopt the same robust approach as did the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, when he was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. He will not hold back from making recommendations if he considers that, in the light of the experience of operating these powers, changes should be made to Schedule 3. Moreover, the provisions of the Bill will be subject to the normal five-year post-legislative review.
I hope that, given this explanation, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment. I have explained the need to maintain the current scope of the power subject to the narrowing of the “economic well-being” limb.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said, and in particular for the constructive and successful efforts that are being made to reduce the attack surface, if I may use the intelligence jargon, of these very broad powers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2) A person may refuse a request for documents or information under paragraph 3(1) where—(a) the information or document in question consists of journalistic material within the meaning of either section 13 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or section 264(1) to (4) or (6) and (7) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016;(b) the information or document in question is subject to legal privilege; or(c) the information or document in question may reveal the identity of a source of journalistic information.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I recognise that this amendment is not perfect and I am sure that the government draftsmen could make a better job of it, but the Government have shown that they are open to amending the Bill to improve it and to put in the necessary safeguards for journalists and others. For that reason, I ask the Minister to look again at the Schedule 3 power and to add proper oversight of its use.
The existing powers in Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act have already proved open to abuse. When David Miranda was stopped at the border on the instruction of the security services, it was because he was the partner of Glenn Greenwald, a journalist reporting on the facts released by whistleblower Edward Snowden. It is thanks to these heroic individuals that we now know the true extent to which the American National Security Agency spies on just about every person who owns a phone or a computer. David Miranda was stopped at Heathrow Airport to confiscate any documents and data that he might have been holding in relation to the whistleblowing. There was no judicial oversight and no legal protection for the sensitive journalistic information that the security services sought to confiscate.
This amendment is not just an issue that I have cooked up because I do not trust the Government or something that NGOs have asked me to bring forward. It was the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the David Miranda case, where the Master of the Rolls said that the existing Schedule 7 power, on which Schedule 3 is based, is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that,
“in relation to journalistic material … it is not subject to adequate safeguards against its arbitrary exercise … It will be for Parliament to provide such protection. The most obvious safeguard would be some form of judicial or other independent and impartial scrutiny conducted in such a way as to protect the confidentiality in the material”.
What have the Government done to rectify this breach of human rights law? Given that the existing Schedule 7 power has already been ruled in breach of human rights by the Court of Appeal, how have the Government chosen to bring another power which replicates the breach in its entirety? In that light, how was the Minister able to put a statement on the Bill that it is in accordance with the Human Rights Act when it is not? We have to amend this provision in some way. The alternative is that we pass a measure that we know has already been declared in breach of the human rights convention and is certain to be declared so again.
Journalists do essential work. They are the lifeblood of any free country, yet they face constant threats across the world for speaking truth to power. In the USA, despite constitutional protection, they are labelled by the President as “enemies of the people”, and have had bomb scares and other threats made by the far right. In Saudi Arabia, and far too many other countries, they face arrest, violence and death. It is against this backdrop that I am grateful to the Minister for tabling a number of amendments to the Bill which seek to protect journalists and their sources from the powers contained within. However, Schedule 7—and by extension the Schedule 3 power—do not protect journalists, and expose their sources to interference by the state.
My amendment gives journalists the right to say no when asked to hand over confidential information. I recognise that this is a sticking plaster for now. The Government can and should bring their own amendment to resolve the issues in the Miranda judgment, and give proper judicial oversight of this kind of confiscation. I hope this is just an oversight, and that the Minister has not yet tabled all her amendments to Schedule 3. While we wait for those to be forthcoming, can the Minister reassure us that we will come back to this at Third Reading?
Amendment 34F builds on the points I have just made. At the moment, the Schedule 3 power at least contains a safeguard so that any statements a detainee makes while detained cannot be used in court. The same protection is not given to information or documents that are confiscated. There should be protection for journalistic material and journalists’ sources, so that they cannot be exposed in court. I look forward to seeing the Minister’s amendments, which would resolve this problem.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, at least in principle. There is clearly a conundrum here. You have people potentially being detained and questioned at ports, for up to a maximum of six hours. They may be in possession of documents that are genuinely confidential journalistic material—for example, information about journalistic sources—or they may be legal documents, subject to legal privilege. As this amendment suggests, however, to allow someone to refuse to hand over the documents or information on the basis that this is what they contain, would be open to abuse by foreign spies, or people who have adverse intentions towards the United Kingdom. There is a dilemma between protecting legally privileged material and confidential journalistic material, but at the same time—and within the timescales and practicalities of a Schedule 3 or Schedule 7 stop—finding some mechanism that protects those fundamental human rights and enables the Border Force to carry out its job in protecting the United Kingdom.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, these two amendments raise genuine points of concern. As the Bill is written, border guards and other officials are being put in a more privileged position than police forces. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the police have to apply to a court for judicial approval of such actions, so I am supportive.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raises important issues with these two amendments, and I am happy to give my support in principle. As the noble Baroness said herself, I am not convinced that these amendments, as written, are correct, though they certainly raise issues the Government should look at and support. All of us here would, I hope, support journalists, and a free and responsible press.
The issues raised by the amendments need looking at; I hope that the Minister will do so when she responds. Perhaps we can find a way forward, possibly at Third Reading, to address the concerns here. It is about getting the balance right between protecting our country, protecting the rights of journalists and keeping ourselves safe and secure. We need to get those issues right in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree totally with noble Lords that there is a balance to be struck between the freedom of the press and getting material that is not conducive to this country’s well-being. The amendments reflect concerns about how Schedule 3 ports powers apply to journalistic material and sources. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke passionately about that issue in Committee; I hope to assure her that Schedule 3 includes a number of safeguards to protect confidential material, including confidential journalistic material.
Schedule 3 is a counter-hostile state activity power. With that in mind, it is vital that ports officers are equipped to deal with the means and methods of those engaged in such activity. I spoke in Committee about the very real threat we face from foreign intelligence officers and their agents who actively use the cover of certain professions including journalism, the law and others. That is why Schedule 3 introduces new powers to allow for action to be taken where an article that may include confidential material could be used in connection with a hostile act, presents a threat to life or could lead to significant injury.
Amendment 34E would undermine the ability of ports officers to detect, disrupt and deter hostile actors as it would allow a person simply to refuse a request for documents or information, including sources, where they claim that it consists of journalistic material, as defined by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the Investigatory Powers Act, or is subject to legal privilege. That would prohibit the examining officer verifying that the material in question is confidential or journalistic and would require the officer to take the examinee at their word.
I have spoken before about why that would be problematic when faced with trained hostile actors who will seek to exploit any possible loophole in our legislation, yet the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, are precisely why the new retention powers in respect of confidential information require the authorisation of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who must be satisfied that certain conditions are met before granting that authorisation. This approach protects the work of legitimate journalists and lawyers and is consistent with the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the Schedule 7 case of Miranda, to which the noble Baroness referred. In that case, the court said that,
“independent and impartial oversight … is the natural and obvious adequate safeguard”,
in examination cases involving journalistic freedom.
Amendment 34F would extend the statutory bar—which prohibits answers or information given orally by a person during an examination being used in criminal proceedings—to any information or documents given where the material is considered journalistic. Noble Lords will know that the purpose of this important safeguard, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is to protect an examinee against self-incrimination where they must respond to questioning under compulsion and so do not have a right to silence. The amendment would extend the statutory bar into territory it was not designed or intended to cover. It could prevent evidence of a hostile act from being used in criminal proceedings where it had been acquired through the legitimate examination of confidential material on the authorisation of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Accepting this amendment would undermine the ability of the police and the CPS to prosecute hostile actors, either those who have used journalistic cover to disguise their criminal activities or those whose activities might be evidenced by confidential material in the hands of a third party.
Although I do not agree with the amendments, for the reasons I have explained, I recognise the force of the noble Baroness’s arguments on the need for strong protections for journalistic material that is not confidential. I will therefore ask my officials to consider if any additional protections may be introduced through the Schedule 3 codes of practice. I can undertake to keep the noble Baroness informed of progress with this work, and of course a revised version of the draft code of practice will need to come back to this House to be approved before those provisions come into force. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving the House another opportunity to debate the appropriate safeguards for journalistic and legally privileged material under Schedule 3. In light of my undertaking to do this additional work, I hope she will feel happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
I thank the Minister for her response and I thank the noble Lords who supported my amendment in principle. I was going to say that I withdraw the amendment with discontent, but in fact I am absolutely delighted by the Minister’s answer, so I look forward to Third Reading. Thank you.
“( ) A detainee must be informed of the right under this paragraph on first being detained.”
“( ) A detainee must be informed of the right under this paragraph on first being detained.”
“(1) This paragraph applies where a detainee exercises the right under paragraph 30 to consult a solicitor.(2) A police officer of at least the rank of superintendent may direct that the right—(a) may not be exercised (or further exercised) by consulting the solicitor who attends for the purpose of the consultation or who would so attend but for the giving of the direction, but(b) may instead be exercised by consulting a different solicitor of the detainee’s choosing.(2A) A direction under this paragraph may be given before or after a detainee’s consultation with a solicitor has started (and if given after it has started the right to further consult that solicitor ceases on the giving of the direction).”
“( ) A detainee must be informed of the rights under sub-paragraphs (1) and (6) on first being detained.”
“(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies where a detainee exercises the right under paragraph 37(6) to consult a solicitor.(2) A police officer not below the rank of superintendent may, if it appears to the officer to be necessary on one of the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (3), direct that the right—(a) may not be exercised (or further exercised) by consulting the solicitor who attends for the purpose of the consultation or who would so attend but for the giving of the direction, but(b) may instead be exercised by consulting a different solicitor of the detainee’s choosing.(2A) A direction under this paragraph may be given before or after a detainee’s consultation with a solicitor has started (and if given after it has started the right to further consult that solicitor ceases on the giving of the direction).”
“( ) A person may be specified in regulations under this paragraph only if the person exercises public functions (whether or not in the United Kingdom).”
“38A_ In Schedule 14 (exercise of officers’ powers), in paragraph 4 after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(3) A person may be specified in an order under this paragraph only if the person exercises public functions (whether or not in the United Kingdom).””
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the House will recall that on the first day on Report, a new clause was added to the Bill to strengthen the rights of persons detained under Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 to consult a solicitor in private. Amendment 45 is consequential upon that new clause. The amendment will provide that the new clause will be commenced by regulations, rather than automatically coming into force two months after Royal Assent. This will allow time to update the code of practice under the Terrorism Act 2000 before these provisions are brought into force. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
(3A) Before section 19 can come into force, the Secretary of State must revise the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy and any guidance under—(a) section 29(3),(b) section 36(7), and(c) section 38(6),of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.(3B) The revisions under subsection (3A) must ensure that—(a) there is a clear and consistent definition of when considerations other than terrorism can be considered relevant to the assessment of an individual who is thought vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism, and(b) the definition of when considerations other than terrorism can be considered relevant to the assessment of an individual who is thought vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism is bounded by the requirement to assess the risk of being drawn into terrorism under sections 26(1) and 36(1) of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.”
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, in introducing Amendment 46, I would like to put on the record my thanks to the Minister for the very useful meeting that the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and I had with her at the beginning of the month. As a result of that meeting, I have decided not to re-table one of my Committee stage amendments. However, I think it is important to revisit the concerns I addressed in Committee through my Amendments 89 and 91, hence why I am speaking to Amendment 46 today. The basic problem addressed by my amendment is that the guidance documents that are likely to inform the implementation of the duties set out under Section 36 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, as amended by Clause 19 of the Bill before us today, uphold an inconsistent approach to the crucial question of whether—and if so, when—considerations regarding non-violent extremism are relevant.
The wording of Section 36 is very clear that it requires local authorities to assess whether people are vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. Section 36 does not ask for an assessment to be made regarding whether people will be drawn into any other activity and, specifically, no reference is made to non-violent extremism. In this context, there must be a concern that any suggestion in the guidance that these panels should assess people for anything other than the risk of being drawn into terrorism would involve their acting beyond the parent legislation.
At this point, some might say, “So what? If a Section 36 panel assesses and sanctions interventions relating to people who engage in extremism as well as terrorism, is that such a bad thing?” To my mind, it all depends what you mean by “extremism”. If you mean violent extremism, this clearly falls within the parameters of terrorism and Section 36. Clearly, making an intervention at that point is wholly justified. However, extremism is a potentially much wider concept than violent extremism and is very much a subjective reality in the eyes of the beholder. One person’s extremism will be another’s common sense and vice versa.
Part of the genius of the British political tradition over centuries has been its capacity to make room for people with different world views, some of them more peculiar than others. In this context, it is vital that the guidance that informs the application of Section 36, as amended by Clause 19, does not encourage local authorities to stray into a general assessment of extremism in the round, because this clearly overreaches what is mandated by the legislation and because we must jealously guard our commitment to free speech.
In highlighting this concern, I am not arguing that there is an absolute divide between violent and non-violent extremism, such that it is not legitimate to consider non-violent extremism in implementing Section 36. The proper relationship between non-violent extremism and terrorism for the purposes of Section 36 has been set out very clearly by Mr Justice Ouseley in his judgment in the 2017 case of Mr Salman Butt. He says that intervention on the basis of Section 26, and thus clearly by implication Section 36, can be only in response to,
“active opposition to fundamental British values”,
which,
“must in some respect risk drawing others into terrorism before the guidance applies to it. If there is some non-violent extremism, however intrinsically undesirable, which does not create a risk that others will be drawn into terrorism, the guidance does not apply to it”.
In other words, non-violent extremism is a relevant consideration only to the extent that it creates a risk that others will be drawn into terrorism. Non-violent extremism that does not sustain this relationship to terrorism is not engaged.
A number of counterarguments have been made in response to my highlighting these concerns. In the first instance, it has been said that the Prevent duty guidance and counterterrorism guidance are not relevant because the guidance that had been specifically developed for implementing Section 36 is the Channel duty guidance. I accept that the Channel duty guidance has been specifically drafted with Section 36 in mind. I expect that local authorities would turn to this in the first instance. What I do not think stands up to scrutiny, however, is the suggestion that local authorities will not consult other guidance documents. I will not repeat everything I said on this in Committee, but I remind the House that the Channel guidance encourages its readers to look at the Prevent duty strategy and the counterterrorism strategy under the heading “Other Useful Guidance”.
In the second instance, it has been suggested that the Channel duty guidance, the Prevent duty guidance and the counterterrorism strategy all adopt a clear and consistent approach to the relationship between terrorism and non-violent extremism, such that one can be confident that there will be no confusion about when, on the basis of Section 36, it is appropriate for a local authority to intervene. I have acknowledged that parts of these documents are clear on this question. My difficulty is that other parts are far from clear, and this is leading to confusion.
For instance, in the Prevent duty strategy, the glossary definition of extremism does not depend on any necessary connection to terrorism. It says that for the purpose of the strategy, extremism is,
“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our Armed Forces, whether in this country or overseas”.
Although there is a reference to calling for the death of members of the Armed Forces, that is not necessary to fulfil this definition of extremism, and so it does not reflect what the law says as set out by Mr Justice Ouseley.
The counterterrorism strategy, meanwhile, provides a definition of terrorism specifically for the Channel programme that is completely beyond Mr Justice Ouseley’s definition of the law. Paragraph 124 of the strategy states:
“Channel is … run in every local authority in England and Wales, and addresses all types of extremism”.
The suggestion that Channel interventions can be made with respect to all types of extremism clearly suggests that this provides a basis for intervention in relation to non-violent extremism where there is no relationship to violent extremism and terrorism.
The Channel duty guidance is also confused. Part 4 makes the necessary connection to terrorism very clear. It states:
“Preventing terrorism will mean challenging extremist and non-violent ideas that are also part of a terrorist ideology”.
In other words, content that the state deems extreme but is itself non-violent must be connected with terrorism in that it must be part of terrorist ideology to be a relevant consideration. However, paragraph 5 then uses a different definition of extremism, in which there is no necessary connection with terrorist ideology. This seems to open the door to anything the state deems extreme without needing to be part of a terrorist ideology. This confusion is further reflected in the more detailed definition of what extremism is that is provided in paragraph 51, where again we see no necessary connection to terrorism.
The lack of any consistent clarity about when consideration of non-violent extremism is appropriate in discharging Section 36 responsibilities with respect to terrorism is a real problem, because the resulting confusion is impacting on practice, as noted by Mr Justice Ouseley in paragraph 29 of his judgment. Here he is not simply saying that he thinks there is a risk of confusion. He is saying that he is encountering that confusion as people misapply a felt obligation to prevent people being drawn into non-violent extremism. The paragraph says:
“However often that phrase is used, it starts, in my judgment, from a fundamental misreading or misunderstanding of the guidance. The guidance is about the s26 duty; it is therefore about preventing people being drawn into terrorism through non-violent extremism. Non-violent extremism which carries no risk of drawing people into terrorism is not subject to the guidance. Once the risk is established that a non-violent extremist does pose such a risk, the guidance applies. It is not at issue that preventing people being drawn into terrorism is a legitimate aim”.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in support of Amendment 46. I want also to put on the record my thanks to the Minister for facilitating the meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and me.
It is not my intention to repeat what the noble Baroness has said, but I want to say clearly that I agree with all of it. The Minister asked her and me whether we could think of any examples of confusion resulting from the inconsistent approach set out in guidance as to when non-violent extremism can be addressed in responding to the Section 36 duty, which pertains narrowly to terrorism, and when it cannot. I shall set out at least two examples.
Before I do so, however, I want to say that, even if there were no examples, it would still be important that when a lack of clarity was highlighted we did not wait for a problem before recognising the need to take action. I am a great believer in recognising where there is potential for problems before they make their presence felt and intervening to address the source of the difficulty in question.
Paragraph 129 of Mr Justice Ouseley’s judgment clearly demonstrates that he has already identified a tendency for people to misconstrue the guidance as it relates to the definition of the threshold that has to be crossed for consideration of non-violent extremism to become relevant. He states: “However often that phrase”—that is, preventing people being drawn into non-violent extremism—
“is used, it starts, in my judgment, from a fundamental misreading or misunderstanding of the guidance. The guidance is about the s26 duty; it is therefore about preventing people being drawn into terrorism through non-violent extremism. Non-violent extremism which carries no risk of drawing people into terrorism is not subject to the guidance. Once the risk is established that a non-violent extremist does pose such a risk, the guidance applies. It is not at issue that preventing people being drawn into terrorism is a legitimate aim”.
In my judgment, this is no more than sufficient justification for the Government to recognise the importance of intervening in order to bring the requisite clarity. This could be done relatively easily by employing Mr Justice Ouseley’s definition of when non-violent extremism is relevant to discharging responsibilities under the terrorism Act 2015 and when it is not.
Despite this, I will now turn to two specific examples, starting with the experience of the National Union of Teachers, which has asked:
“How are schools and sixth form colleges expected to incorporate the Prevent strategy into their existing safeguarding policies? The Prevent duty guidance is again lacking in detail on this point. It says schools ‘will need to consider the level of risk to identify the most appropriate referral, which could include Channel or Children’s Social Care, for example’. It also requires these policies to ‘set out clear protocols for ensuring that any visiting speakers—whether invited by staff or by children themselves—are suitable and appropriately supervised’”.
Crucially, however, the NUT then goes on to observe that the guidance,
“does not indicate which acts/behaviours warrant a referral to Channel or Children’s Social Care”.
This clearly illustrates the problem.
The NUT is not saying that it cannot see terrorism, which is fairly easy to identify. Its difficulty pertains to the lack of clarity regarding what else is relevant, and at the heart of that challenge is knowing what non-violent extremism is engaged and what non-violent extremism is not engaged. On the basis of some parts of the guidance, one could think that all non-violent extremism is relevant. On the basis of the legal definition in his judgment, however, Mr Justice Ouseley is very clear that non-violent extremism is relevant only if it is connected to terrorism in the sense that it,
“risks drawing others into terrorism before the guidance applies to it”.
He then, of course, looks at it from the other perspective, saying:
“If there is some non-violent extremism, however intrinsically undesirable, which does not create a risk that others will be drawn into terrorism, the guidance does not apply to it”.
These are the tests that should be being applied but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has demonstrated, the current guidance does not uphold them and does not have a clear and consistent definition of when non-violent extremism is relevant for the purpose of discharging the Section 36 responsibilities and when it is not relevant. Having considered this NUT example, it is also helpful to have regard to the 2016 Joint Committee on Human Rights report on counter- extremism. Again in relation to education, it states, at paragraph 46, that:
“On 21 June 2016, the Times reported that ‘in schools 1,041 children were referred last year to Channel, the de-radicalisation programme; in 2012, the year it was extended nationally, only nine children were referred’. Evidence on the proportionality of such referrals is almost entirely anecdotal at this stage. Yet it is far from clear that it was envisaged that so many children would be referred. Tell MAMA has stated that it has ‘received a number of cases involving schools and where Muslim young people have been interviewed on the back of alleged comments that they have made within the school environment’. They argue that some of these individuals ‘believe that they have been targeted because of their faith’”.
In other words, the JCHR is questioning whether the scale of referrals is appropriate.
If teachers are overreferring, this is not because they are seeing lots of terrorism in our schools. It is almost certainly because they are seeing what they perceive to be non-violent extremism and think that it provides a basis for a referral. Clearly, if non-violent extremism as a whole is in play, it provides a very broad basis for making referrals that would be consistent with these numbers. This misreading is, of course, entirely consistent with Mr Justice Ouseley’s observation that preventing people being drawn into non-violent extremism arises out of,
“a fundamental misreading of the guidance”.
He is very clear that, legally, the relevant Section 26 duty—and we may add by extension the relevant Section 36 duty, since both are confined to terrorism—engages non-violent extremism only to the extent that it can be shown to be connected to terrorism by playing a part in drawing people into it.
When we are confronted by a general tendency for people to misread the guidance, we can safely assume that the guidance is not clear. That is precisely what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has shown, by looking at the relevant texts. The Minister told the noble Baroness and me that these concerns could be addressed within 12 months because the guidance documents would be up for review by then. However, given that there is evidence suggesting that non-violent extremism is being applied generally, without regard for the appropriate legal constraints, reviewing the guidance is now a matter of considerable urgency.
It was your Lordships’ House that set the legislative framework providing the foundations for the Prevent and Channel duty guidance when we scrutinised and passed the 2015 Act. The evidence highlighting that the guidance is not clear and that it is being misread, to allow it to be applied to non-violent extremism not licensed anywhere in the legislation that we signed off, should be a real concern to every Member of your Lordships’ House.
In this context, while I appreciate that in the normal course of events there will be an opportunity to review the guidance documents in 12 months, I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to leave the many public servants who are expected to discharge this duty with guidance that we know is vulnerable to being misread for possibly as long as another 18 months, depending how long the review lasts. Mindful of this, I ask the Minister to take this matter away between now and Third Reading to see whether, mindful of the practical implications arising out of the lack of clarity, it might be possible to bring forward a review.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, I do not think there is necessarily a need to rewrite the entire guidance documents. What is required is a clear statement at the start of the documents and in the glossary that says words to the effect of, “Any reference to extremism in this document must be read as engaging only non-violent extremism, to the extent that it is connected to terrorism, in the sense that it can be shown to play a part in drawing people into terrorism. Non-violent extremism which carries no risk of drawing people into terrorism is not subject to the guidance. Once the risk is established that a non-violent extremist poses such a risk, the guidance applies. It is not an issue that preventing people being drawn into terrorism is a legitimate aim”. I believe this would bring much-needed clarity. I look forward with great interest to what the Minister has to say in response.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I cannot in any way match the forensic and destructive analysis of the present situation provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. I thank them for that. I think that the Minister has some serious answering to do on those very technical points—the case was argued in much detail.
I want to very briefly make a much broader point. When we make weapons of law in this place, who will wield them in the future? The very compelling point by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that one person’s non-violent extremism is somebody else’s common sense, is one that we ought to have very much in our minds. We should regard that as being precious and part of our heritage as citizens of this country.
It is also something that changes over time. I want to confess to the House that, on one reading of history, I am a non-violent extremist. I am a supporter of the views of Thomas Helwys, who fled this country in 1605 because of the tract that he published which stated that every man should be free to worship his own God, in his own way, whether Catholic, Jew or Muslim. He very sensibly fled to the Netherlands for four years after publishing that tract. He subsequently returned to this country, was arrested and was imprisoned for life in the Tower of London. That is an example of the fact that fashions change and things change in our own country. They also change geographically. In the European Union, 10 years ago it was perfectly safe and proper to be a lecturer at George Soros’s university. Now you are an enemy of the state.
Who holds the weapons concerning what is extreme and what is common sense? I hope the Minister will consider that point as well as the forensic and detailed critique provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Stunell, for their points. All I can say on the back of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is: thank God we do not live in the 17th century.
I start by making it clear that when the Government refer in the various documents mentioned by the noble Baroness to Prevent applying to “all forms of extremism”, that means that Prevent applies to far-right extremism as much as it does to Islamist extremism—and, indeed, to Sikh-related extremism, Northern Ireland-related extremism, et cetera. This is a relatively new change, as the Prevent strategy pre-2011 applied only to Islamist extremism. This was clearly inequitable and not reflective of the threat, so it was changed. What is not meant by that expression is that Prevent should apply to all degrees of extremism. All our guidance has tried to be clear that Prevent is of relevance only where the extremism is such that there is a risk of people being drawn into terrorism. That is how the duties are framed in statute, and the point is made many times throughout the two pieces of statutory guidance: the Prevent duty guidance and the Channel duty guidance. I accept that there are occasions in those documents when the full formulation is not used for the sake of brevity and style. However, we believe that, when read as a whole, and in conjunction with the 2015 Act, the true meaning is clear.
I also emphasise that we have not seen any evidence to suggest that practitioners are misinterpreting the guidance documents to try to apply them to those forms of extremism which do not risk drawing people into terrorism, but I appreciate the example provided by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and I would be grateful if he would forward it to me. Certainly, the rigorous assessment within the Channel process ensures that no one is likely to be offered support unless that connection to being drawn into terrorism is there. We must not forget that, in any event, Channel support is entirely voluntary.
All guidance reaches a point where it needs to be updated, and we are committed to doing so when the time is right. Since the Prevent and Channel duties were introduced, there has been much good practice and many case studies which a new version would look to contain. Noble Lords may also be aware that just last week the Court of Appeal heard a case relevant to this matter and the Government eagerly await its judgment, which may well have implications for how a future revision of the guidance is drafted. But we do not know how long it will be before the judgment is handed down and it would be a mistake to attempt to revise the guidance beforehand. In addition, the drafting process, collecting good practice and going out to public consultation is likely to take several months.
The process of revising guidance is not a quick one if we are to get it right. The Government accept that it will become necessary to do so at some point in the not too distant future, but it would be damaging to what we are trying to achieve with Clause 19 should implementation of that clause be delayed while new guidance is drafted. The almost inevitable outcome, should such an amendment become law, is that the production of new guidance would be rushed so as to limit that damage, resulting in an inferior product, with much-reduced consultation and input from practitioners. Given that the guidance must be approved by Parliament before being issued, your Lordships’ House would be required to debate an inferior product that I would not wish to lay before it.
While I would not wish to commit the Government to a specific timeframe for producing new guidance, I can say that in any event the guidance will need to be reviewed as part of the post-legislative review process that takes place five years after enactment. The fact that the Act in question received Royal Assent in 2015 means that a review and revision of the guidance will happen no later than 2020. When we revise the guidance, we will be sure to take on board the comments that the noble Baroness has made and make it clear exactly what kind of extremism is covered by the Prevent duty and the guidance, and what is not. Prevent is not and never has been any form of thought police, nor has it been about suppressing dissent. It is of course, as I said earlier, about safeguarding vulnerable people.
I hope I have been able to allay the noble Baroness’s concerns and that she will feel happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I thank the Minister for what she has said. I thought when I was speaking that I got an indication that there would be some action within 12 months, but as she spoke I became rather more worried by the time that everything is going to take.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. Twelve months from now brings us virtually into 2020.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
All right. That is reassuring—to everyone, I hope.
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, and I thank the Minister herself for what she has said to us all. I certainly hope that the nature of the problems that we have highlighted during this debate is such that rather more detailed consideration might be given to bringing the whole timetable forward. That would certainly be a great help. The sooner it is done, the better, even if the timetable is really around the 12-month timing. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.